Im 12 and I've got 3 of my friends into 5e. Ive never played any other edition but i have an uncle who has played since 1e. My dad and other uncle have played when they were little and my dad still has some of the old models. Me and my friends have been playing a lot and I love your videos and the work you put into them
Recently in a 5e campaign I DM, the party came upon a hostile "Temple of the Old Gods" in a lower level of a dungeon, and the inhabitants they met near the entrance were surprised to see things like an elf cleric in the party. When the party entered the temple proper, we switched to B/X character sheets and used B/X rules. The level 6 characters felt more vulnerable with less hp, but the AC and PC attack modifiers, while figured differently, were about the same! The monsters, however, missed a lot more often and also had less hp, but they would trouble the party by fleeing, regrouping, and casting fell magics, and so it was fun. Upon exiting the Temple, we played using 5e again, but it was interesting to revisit an edition I hadn't run in years and compare it to the 5e I run now. This made me reassess my current play style. For example, it's satisfying as a player to see your opponents fail morale and flee; I usually role-play it now, but I wonder if I should experiment with the morale rolls option in the 5e DMG now. At the least, it made a memorable "evil temple".
@@tomtom7955 B/X refers to the Basic and Expert set that was published in '77. It was intended to be an entry point for players new to tabletop gaming, something to learn and play around with before getting into the more complicated AD&D, but it ended up being pretty popular on its own.
@@captcorajus I don't agree, 5E is not really an Old School style game and definitely not a medieval RPG, actually D&D has never tried to be so. I would say that 5E revived interest in the D&D brand, not in medieval RPG's. In any case, D&D has never been a medieval game, it is a game based upon the fantasy fiction of the early and mid 20th century, and also on ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Sumerian Mythology, to name a few. It is most strongly influenced, according to Gary Gygax, by Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories and only loosely based on medieval realities. It is a mix, and 5E returned D&D closer to its narrative roots than had 2nd ed, 3.0, and 4E. Is 5E a good game, yes, but it does not deserve this particular accolade.
@@clivestewart1607 Where did I say D&D was a Medieval game?? Never said that. I was responding to the comment. But you are right, D&D is not 'Medieval' but it IS fantasy.... and fantasy literature technology, especially D&D, is usually based off of that of Medieval Europe. Most people generalize the two, but regardless of how you say it, the meaning is understood by most. If you've watched any other videos on my channel, I've covered in depth D&D origins and influences, which not only includes Vance but many other Pulp era authors such as Robert E Howard, Clarke Ashton Smith, among many others. :) I don't view Old School as a 'system' but more of a style of play... i.e. Resource management being important, the threat of death being more palpable, puzzles and tricks that frequently challenge the PLAYER rather than the statistics on the character sheet. If you're playing this way, you're playing old school. This video was specifically made to instruct on how to bring those old school sensibilities to modern D&D. I see no 'accolades' to be given here.
@@captcorajus All I am saying is I disagree that 5E revived interest in Medieval Style RPG. Why it does not deserve to be stated as reviving interest in Medieval RPG is because other games and systems, Pathfinder being the best example kept this "Medieval RPG" interest alive and strong.. I disagreed with that concept. Its not a big deal. And I have watched every one of your videos, and this one and agree with you that 5E can easily be used to create the Old School D&D experience, the Dungeon Master guide and a few changes can make it so, and your ideas how to do it are very valid. I love the videos you make and I am a subscriber.
To add, watching your videos inspired me to re open up my original Basic and Expert boxes of D&D I bought in 1981 and start playing through Keep on the borderlands with my 5E group using the basic and expert rules.
I've always wanted to run an "old school" campaign, weaving in classic modules starting with the venerable The Village of Hommlet and ending with The Throne of Bloodstone (converted to 5e rules of course!) I'm extremely lucky to have found your channel as this video is exactly what I've been looking for as a starting point, so thank you very much for this video!
I like how easy it is to incorporate any older edition modules in a 5E campaign without a serious work over. I've also found the reduced stat creep to really help with younger players. The character bonds/flaws is a good addition for character creation. Thanks for the video.
I totally agree. I love all the new people getting into the game. My gaming group is really flourishing with the release of 5E, and after a bit of a rocky start with it, as a DM I've started hitting my stride with this rule set. Which is why I was a bit frustrated with the way the rules were written. For those of us Grognards that have been playing since 1E, there's a lot of clutter in my brain that had to be cleaned up and reorganized. lol.... the definition of a 'Turn' for example is a biggie. I love the action economy mechanics, I love the way spell casting for wizards is done, I love background, inspiration, advantage/ disadvantage. All FUN things that elevates 5E, and makes it a strong rule set. Thus, it breaks my heart a little that many of these great concepts are poorly explained in the rules.
I like the ability to pick backgrounds, I have some players that never created a character background and others that did. Now if they cannot think of something for them self, I have the pick from the 5e backgrounds, one player just rolled randomly, but they have a background that I can work with.
One of my favourite introductions was the option of experience milestones, allowing me to do away with crunching numbers for experience points and just let them level up every couple of adventures. I'm also a big fan of the standard array.
You can change the mechanics all you want, but if your DM is a "Monty Haul" type, then that will set about ruining the balance anyway. This isn't a complaint mind you, just an observation. You can take the player/DM out of the video game, but you cant take the video game out of the player/DM.
Really love your "aspects of OSR play" genius and could not agree more. Going to write this right in my DM journal! Not only that but your "OSR your game" section of your video fixes all my issues with 5e! Thank you! By the way your channel is great don't stop making videos!!!
Thanks! I'm in a large 5E forum on Facebook, and reading all the questions from new and experienced players and DMs, I had a feeling that some of what I'd been doing, or had learned (through the old reliable school of hard knocks) might be useful to others. Thanks for watching and the compliment!
Cap, I have commented on some of your videos in the past because it was great to see so many of the old 1st ed and Basic/Expert adventures and books covered on your channel (along with other games like WEG Star Wars and V&V). I watched these videos on 5E, and while I found them interesting, I was not exactly interested in picking back up with another version of the game. When the lockdown began earlier this year, my youngest son (almost 9) expressed interest in trying some RPGs with me and we tried V&V and messed around a bit with Pathfinder characters. As he was enjoying those games I decided to by the 5E start set and essentials kit (I believe in part because of what I recalled from your reviews) and give them a try with my son. We both loved them, and in short order picked up the three core 5E rulebooks!
@@captcorajus You welcome Cap. To add to my comment, last Friday my son took his first turn behind the DM's screen, introducing one of his cousins to D&D by creating a small dungeon and running a game for my nephew. My brother told me they had a great time, playing for hours.
Hello All! I would like to add one homebrew rule we use, which we think makes the game more difficult yet makes it feel more real. We simply impose disadvantage on every skill check a character makes in which he/she is not proficient with. We just found it ridiculous that you can role on anything and a barbarian rolling on Arcana with a lucky 20 can beat the party wizard. :) Its a drastic measure for sure, but in game it feels right. And for instance a bards Jack of all the Trade simply removes this disadvantage rather then adding half proficiency.
Great job. Another fine presentation and you capture much of how I see it also. I will admit that I miss that Gygaxian touch. Somehow it feels like they wanted to stay away from anything that could even the hint at channeling Gygax.
Don't know how I missed this one, but truly great work. Thank you! I've been in 3.5 campaigns over the last few years after a long absence from the hobby, and agree the game has become superheroes in the Middle Ages. All that lavished ability does is replace the need for clever thinking. Having to strive for success is what I enjoy most about D&D. This is not a linear video game with a big battle versus an arch villain waiting patiently for you to follow specific steps. D&D writes itself with every action taken, and evolves. To adapt, overcome, and improvise, is where lies the challenge and greatest fun! Cheers!
I actually like the customization feats give you. I agree with your other suggestions though. I would also add the following: 1. The DM rolls certain checks in secret. This preserves the suspense when searching for or disarming traps, sneaking, or trying to bluff your way through the guards. 2. Foraging for and keeping track of material components. Give certain spells that conjure stuff out of thin air material components. This is a neat way to limit the number of uses of the more powerful spells (hello Goodberry) and introduces the aspect of resource management that older editions had. 3. Encumbrance. 4. Exploration rounds. Bring back the 'each action the players wish to do takes a fixed amount of time' rule.
I broke down and created a twitter account just so I could post a question for Zoltar and the devs. Never got an answer. So I caved again and created a twitch account to make a D&D Beyond account to look up and test items so I could finally get an answer to my question. Funny thing is, it wasn't even my question. There was confusion in one of the D&D5E Facebook groups about similarly named magic items stacking. Turns out a cloak of protection and a ring of protection stack in 5E.
Great video! What I have added to my 5e campaign is 1 level of exhaustion to the player character each time they are dropped to 0 hps and are brought back though healing to make going to 0 hps more serious. Of course the only way to remove the level is exhaustion is an 8 hour rest! I also use your suggestion of no Feats and, due to my horrible experiences with power gamers from Adventurers League, multi classing.
Hi! Very nice overview of the 5e! Nevertheless, I have to point out several points: 1) if you cast Counterspell (components: Somatic) against an enemy caster, they can cast Counterspell against your Counterspell, but they would lose the spell they are casting if it has a Somatic component, because they are interrupting their own spell. On the other hand, if the enemy wizard is casting Dimension door (Component: Verbal), and you cast Counterspell, they can Counterspell your Counterspell without interrupting their own spell. 2) Challenge Rating is quite correct in assessing the difficulty of an encounter IF YOU ARE NOT USING MULTICLASSING NOR FEATS, both of which are optional. The monsters in MM have been created without considering those rules. In my personal experience, if you add feats to the game, just add a 10% to everything in the monster stat (AC, HP, bonus to attack, bonus to damage, DC of monster abilities), as well as in the number of monster in an encounter. If you allow multiclassing, I would add at least a 30%. With both, 50% more.
Way late to the party here, but regarding challenge ratings... holy crap thank you! I agree wholeheartedly about its total useless. I tend to go by "milestone" experience anyway, and it's never that hard to gauge the difficulty of a fight with a creature from just reading its stats.
I wish I had seen this video before I got my 5E group going. They are superheroes without question. Very difficult to challenge even at level 9. A couple of them are "optimizers" which doesn't help. Their stats are extremely good, they have too much/too powerful magical items (my fault). I'd probably DM 5E again if I were to use your OSR options from the start. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I'm now exploring many other game systems since losing interest in 5E; I've spent a great deal of money on DCC (Goodman Games), Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed of (Modiphius), Godbound (amazing book highly recommend by Kevin Crawford), Vampire the Masquerade 5th ed (Modiphius/White Wolf/Onyx or whoever they are now), and I recently ordered Castles and Crusades and Amazing Adventures (Troll Lord Games).
I understand where you're coming from. Let me makes some additional suggestions that might help you 'challenge' them more, even those min/ maxers in your group. ACTIONS. I can't overstate this enough. With all the special abilities that characters of in 5E, you need to 'optimize' your monsters as well. Multi attack is a great option from the onset. You can 'just give' monsters more attacks. There's nothing that says you can't and in fact, it specifically says you can! Do it. Bonus actions. Give them abilities that take effect on a bonus action. To be fair, such abilities usually are only good between short or long rests or have a 'recharge 5-6'. Traits: Give them abilities that work in tandem with their own allies. An example of this is pack tactics that give an attacker advantage if an ally is within 5ft. The DMG has a comprehensive list of abilities you can give monsters, and Matt Collville has a great video on adding 4E monster abilities to 5E monsters. Its worth checking out. Reactions: Give them abilties that let them attack on reactions. A favorite mine is 'spear defense'. This is for those working in formation with shield and spear. Whenever an enemy attacks an ally within 5ft the creature can use their reaction to make a spear attack. Your BBEG NEED their legendary actions. Remember, LAs can be used at any point during the round, and even interrupt a PC's action. Do it and don't be shy about it. Along with that is Lair actions! Initiative count 20, spring a good one on them. That'll keep them on their toes! This is the way the game is suppose to be played. Modify your monsters according to your party's strengths and weaknesses. Used ranged attacks against spell casters. Include healers. Use spell casters with area effect attacks. I promise, if you up the ante your encounters will become much more challenging, and your players with love/ hate you for it!
@@captcorajus Thanks! These are outstanding suggestions! Running a B/X - Lamentations of the Flame Princess game tonight but will definitely restart my 5E game. I'm sure my friends will be excited to play their level nines again.
also healing... we added in if your healed (spell) after hitting negative HP's you gain a level of exhaustion, if the player is stabilized to ZERO then healed it is all normal
After introducing my fiancé to D&D via 1st edition (seriously house modded of course), I am thinking it's time to bust out some 5e at our table. Mostly because I want her to be familiar with the newer ruleset in case we attend a Con where it's being played. But, I just keep putting it off. As a matter of fact, we've started playing the absolutely brilliant Dungeon Crawl Classics as of late, and that has kept 5e from the table now. Your reviews are always so informative; I'm hoping this will invigorate my desire to learn/run 5e.
Hi captain! I found your channel recently, and like it very much. Thanks! I'm wondering if, after a couple of years of playing 5e, you have new insights about it. Do you love it even more, found neat stuff that was not obvious from the beginning? Do some stuff now seems less great, or downright problematic? I've been playing it (and mastering it) for a couple years now (I still do), and my views evolved. Curious about yours! Thanks!
I still like it, but i don't play much after the characters reach 14th level. I'm on my second campaign at this point. The biggest problem with 5E is that a lot of its concepts are not explained in the rules. It needs a glossary.... badly. Also, a lot of the rules are not put in the right place. For example: You can use Acrobatic to escape a grapple, but this is not mentioned or even referenced under the acrobatic skill. I mean, shouldn't there at least be a note saying, "See page 195, escaping a grapple"? The rules are rife with this kind of thing, like I said in my video.... its annoying AF. Otherwise, I'm fine with it, and do enjoy playing it, though running it has its frustrations. There are too many abilities and spells that circumvent traditional puzzles and problems. If you ever run a 1E module for 5E you'll find this out quick.
@@captcorajus Wow, thanks for the very quick response! I must say that I agree with you about the unexplained rules and general organization of the book (I've been using my PHB for years, now, and I *still* sometimes have a hard time finding what I'm looking for), but that not a major point for me : I ask players to print whatever special powers/spells/ability their PC have (so referencing the book is not necessary), and I'm pretty loose about ability checks (usually letting the player use many different skills to accomplish the same activity if it makes sense). It's clearly a bad thing, but it does not really affect me or my game that often. I also agree with you about the fact that many abilities and spells trivially solves a lot of problem. That is, in my opinion, much more of a pain, since it detracts from the game on two different levels. First, it directly makes a lot of problem-solving and exploration useless. For example, my players found a tunnel flooded by a fountain in the entrance of a cave. There was a secret lever outside, but a simple cantrip (Shape Water) let the sorcerer reverse the flow of the fountain long enough to drain the tunnel. That's nice thinking, I'm not complaining about that, but it shows that a lot of traditional puzzles are basically meaningless in a 5e game. Same goes for traditional ressource management : light is a cantrip, a ranger will basically eliminating any danger for overland travel/hexcrawling, etc. Second, and this is especially unfortunate, it discourages players' imagination and direct them to their PC sheet for answer. That's also true for combat. The relative advantage you can get from great planning is inconsequential compared to being freshly rested. I still have fun and all, but I'm less and less inclined to think think that 5e is such a good fit for OSR games.
@@RayRobidoux I really think 5e is a great system, but it goes overboard in certain ways that end up detracting from it. So I couldn't agree with your assessment more. However, if you look at certain things, and let me give you a prime example, "Adventures in Middle Earth" Where the classes and magic have been altered to reflect the setting, is really good. I think for us older/ OSR fans there could be a 'rewrite' so to speak that keeps the best aspects of the system, but alters classes, spells and abilities to reflect old school sensibilities would be a great product.
Every edition of Traveller started with some level of background creation. Mongoose Traveller 1 had this sorted out while the over powered 4E was Wizard's solution.
Been watching these videos to get a better understanding of the old school vibe. The death around the corner thing is always a weird critique. As a 5e dm ive never struggled to slay a player character and ive usually have to scale back even basic encounters sometimes. 5e is deadly. Its not like that wasn’t there.
Yes, its deadly. No doubt, but given the various tools at their disposal, even basic cantrips, the chance of actual dearth is very small in comparison to old school play, and this is even more pronounced once the PC hit 3rd level. In addition the Heal over night rule actually HURTS the game, and in a very subtle way. Keep in mind, that I'm also a 5E DM, running it from the very beginning and 3 full campaigns from level 1 to 14, so I'm not looking at it from the outside. The core issue... and if you've never played old school its not readily apparent is that having to stop in town an heal is.... DOWNTIME. Note that because of the heal over night rule, 5E actually has to incorporate a 'downtime' rule. With old school play its innate to the game. Fighters need to heal, wizards need to scribe scrolls and research spells, clerics need to brew potions and visit their order, thieves need to touch base with their guild, etc. DOWNTIME is where the real seeds of the campaign occur, but with the way 5E plays out, it wirlwinds the characters into one adventure to the next. The other issue with 5E is that magic tends to fix EVERYTHING. Prime example... I narrate that the characters are trudging through a swamp, covered in mud, stinging insects etc. They finally find a dry spot to rest and try and recover from the exhausting trek. Then the wizard casts prestidigitation on everyone repeatedly and they're all clean. Rugged trek atmosphere through muggy swamp... destroyed. Another example: Pact of the Chain Warlock's familiar... turns invisible, changes form, and the warlock can 'see' through the familiar as long as they are on the same plane of existence. Thus.. there's no real reason to explore the dungeon directly. Everyone hangs around outside while the warlock's familiar does all the dirty work. The core issue is that magic is too ubiquitous for my personal tastes. Certainly some may have fun with this style of play and 5E is a good game, but there are legitimate criticisms. I think if 5E play isn't doing it for some people, they might enjoy the challenges posed by old school play. That's all.
@@captcorajus First off, wow. Thanks for an immediate and detailed response I do agree that, especially if you’re judging by the older variants of the game its the easiest its ever been to heal yourself. ive been at 5e for a while, admittedly ive only dm’d millennials and zoomers but I’ve had very long can captivating games with them. Occasionally years at a time. I think these problems exist via purely by the book play. I think how you run it is important. Not that “just play it better” or “differently” is a good argument. I think there’s an expectation of specific hand holding, and telling the dm directly through books how to handle those situations. Cus slower more constructed play has lead to those moments still existing in my campaigns. Augments like general exhaustion from magically exerting themselves. Or one of my favorites is “Full Hp doesn’t stop your arm from being broken.” The understanding that cure light wounds is not strong enough to fix a ruined limb like that. Another good one i use is Curses like lycanthropy are to strong to be removed by remove curse or greater restoration; but those spells do reveal the steps to save the lycanthrope. These are changes in decided to make usually on the spot but its not like someone following the rules as written would make that kind of change. And i think that there is, at least a vibe, that if these things aren’t written out explicitly they might as well not exist. Which can be a single-issue-reason why people don’t like or wanna play 5e. Like, i learned from my players that most of them Killed Strahd in CoS really early were only afraid of him because how i run the vampire. i think that happens because most dms see the book, and actually try to use the shitty gust of wind spell on his unchanged statblock. Cus they think he must be ran as the statblock says it must. Maybe its too bold to say theres a general lack of creativity across the average dm or player but i feel really feel that way.
@@mitchelldunn9149 Oh, no problem at all. Glad to respond to people that watch my vids and take the time to comment. Thank you! For me.. I don't tend to make up vast, overarching rules that significantly affect game play 'on the spot'. IMHO, 5E is too twitchy to do that, and players that have built their characters to take advantage of how the rules are actually written will quickly inform you of this... lol. Any rule changes I make are carefully considered, and everyone knows what they are before play begins so they can incorporate that into their character design concepts. For example, directly from the DMG section, I used slow natural healing, Healing Kit requirements, and things like that. So.. for my campaigns, healing was still 'difficult' but nearly as quick as RAW, or as slow as Old School Play. That said, I'm a forever DM. I would say... I've got a LOT of experience running and adjudicating the rules. But, the reality is.. that a LOT of DMs are new, and tweeking the rules is a tricky business. You make a what you think is a subtle change and it can vastly alter the game play of an entire class of character. In old school play, the system isn't that twitchy. Currently, I'm running the Hyperborea RPG which is 'old school' but also very robust with really interesting and detailed character classes and tactical combat rules, that is really hitting the spot for me and my players. Game on!
@@captcorajus Its awesome that you do so. And i appreciate the effort And indeed any rule change does have to clear to the player. I make sure that i only change game rules in between game arcs, or long moments of downtime. I think your opinion about new DMs is the nicer way to word my own. I agree that lack of experience is a lot of the issue, and that is mitigated with smooth base rules which 5e fumbles on in multiple ways. Ways you’ve specifically detailed! The healers kit stuff is the one I especially wanna take. Ima consider it for my next arch or game. Interestingly enough i started with 4th edition, and was the forever DM then as i am now. I run a Ravenloft campaign, with a slightly higher power scaling, and i found that looking backwards to old mechanics and not just its lore is pertinent to how to effectively deliver a horror experience. Sources like You, Dm it all, Seth Skorkowsky, Hour of the Raven and multiple others make that task so much easier, and I appreciate the work you do.
Great vids. One of the most under rated/under discussed module of 2nd ed. ever imo is Baltron's Beacon . One of my favorites but had the unfortunate luck of following I6, arguably the best module ever written for any edition. Would love to see a review of some of the more obscure titles.
I just finished GM-ing an Adventures in Middle Earth campaign. Great setting, BTW. Nice adaptation of Middle Earth to 5e. In AiME, PCs do not enjoy the benefits of a long rest unless they are in a safe place: an Inn, their homes, etc. There were a few exceptions. In some cases, finding a place to take a long rest in the Wild was its own reward. If I ever run 5e again, I’ll use this rule. I would further restrict long rests to every 8 encounters. Yes, players need to rest and sleep. But powers that recharge, like HD, cannot be used again until after 8 encounters and a long rest. Otherwise, the players will be too powerful. Obviously, exceptions should be allowed if and when it fits the story.
Personally I think AIME is awful. Terrible classes and ridiculous emphasis on dice and meta-gaming over role-playing. Based on reviews I bought a bunch of AIME stuff and quickly re-sold them online. I'll stick with MERP.
I agreed with most of your points, but feel that 5e really needs Feats for some of the classes, especially those with increased ability score advances. Instead of removing them completely, I'd suggest that you still get the old school feel if you simply limited feats to characters over 7th level.
based on my experience with Feats at the higher levels, I just feel that keeping them out keeps the game a little closer to the 'skilled' rather than 'super' aspect. But you know, that's the beauty of the system, you can sculpt it to play how best it works for you! Thanks for commenting!!!
If you want 'insert-capable' adventures to supplement the hardcover campaigns then you should look at adventure league because they have a whole season of them to match each hardcover. Adventure League is very much 'by-the-numbers D&D' but there are a few gems here and there.
I will say if you played you played BECMI and/or 1st Edition AD&D, or a the weird I hybrid I sometimes did, but have been out of RPG circles for a while and thinking about getting back in -- that is, if you never played 3rd or 4th edition, have never heard of "feats" and such -- descriptions of 5e are often confusing. With a big gap since old school and now a lot of it sounds very alien, like wanting to get back into basketball only to hear people talking about scoring goals and getting the impression someone "revised" it into soccer.
Yeah, my biggest nit with the rules of 5E is they are poorly written. Its took awhile for me to make the adjustment. More work than should have been needed, but having done so, once you 'get it' you realize that it is a wellspring for your creativity. I like it more now than I did when I made this video. Of course, i've been running two different campaigns a week now for over a year, and that's given me the opportunity to work through the rule's 'glitchy' parts.
I am a DM and have been running D&D 2nd edition for 38 years. Just recently made the switch up to 5th edition. First thing I noticed is that PC's got a lot stronger and the monsters got nerfed big time. Abilities that can incapacitate your characters now get saves every round. Used to be you got once shot at a save make or fail. Like a Harpy song for example, or charm person. Average damage done per hit by PC's has almost doubled at first level and by 6th level maybe 4 times what it used to be. Monster damage is up in some case a bit, most are down and AC in a lot of cases is lower than it used to be. Traps are not nearly as deadly. The dying process is now a process. In short it is much easier game on players than it used to be. Much harder on a DM to even find a challenge for the players. Overall I can not say yet if I like it or not. For me it all depends on how well the players in my game respond to it. So far it seems ok enough, but I withhold my final evaluation depending on if they get bored with it. They played over 2 1/2 years with 2nd edition rules and kept wanting more. They are excited now to convert to 5th edition and are liking many of the changes but have not played it long enough to decide if it is better. I do already get some complaints about how the new structure restricts them from doing certain things they used to do.
Let me suggest one additional thing if you're 'old school' like me, that is not really apparent when you start DMing the game. ACTIONS are king in 5E. So, if you want to 'mod' a creature to be a bit tougher give it some actions. Multiattack is obvious, but add a reaction, or a bonus action or both. This will immediately improve the creature's effectiveness. If this is a 'tough' NPC that is expected to really challenge them, then ALSO give them legendary actions. Legendary saves, spell like abilities etc. The DMG has a great list of abilities for monsters. You are under no obligation to follow how 'character classes' work for your monsters. The 'as written' monsters are really just 'base creatures' in 5E, and you can have a lot of fun (I know I do) 'tweaking' them to give the PCs a surprise or two. :)
@@captcorajus Agree with that. The biggest problem often is when your players go to the smart phone and look up what they are fighting and learn all its abilities and take it down. The game lost is challenge. Only way to bring that back is to create something they do not know how to beat. But then you once again get accused of not playing the game correctly or cheating playing god etc... So one does have to make changes fit logically into your world setting otherwise it loses that flavor and does feel like the DM is cheating.
While we're on spell confusion, Green Flame Blade still stumps me somewhat. The written description & the bullet points in D&D Beyond make me think differently. On D&D Beyond it shows two damage "targets": 1d8 then 1d8+con mod to next creature/target. The first d8 makes me think that you add that to the weapon dmg to your main target (weapon on fire like a flame tongue.) After you hit, a gout of flame jumps to an adjacent target. (Just the fire die + con mod.) In short, do you add a flame die to the main target or not?
on the counterspell .... if first wizard is casting Fireball and then second caster casts counterspell ... now the first is still casting fireball right if you add in extra words into fireball or hand gestures wouldn't that stop the fireball
Are you familiar with a company 'Central Castings'? They made these supplements 'Heroes of Legend' (fantasy) and Heores of Tomorrow (Sci Fy). They were background generates for role playing games.
how would you make strength great again? Im thinking about adding 1/2 str bonus to health on lv up if strength is 14 or greater. Dexterity seems to be a superior stat in 5e. flat footed isn't even in the phb that i can see, the only thing close is unconsciousness or victim being restrained giving you advantage but it doesn't negate that dex bonus so i added a rule when you cannot move freely you lose half(if you can still make attacks) or all dex to ac(if completely immobile) on top of the advantage/disadvantage(basically a +or- 7 on average instead of 5). the effects haven't really been noticeable.also made acrobatics a dex/str skill and athletics a str/con skill and considering allowing 1/2 of the extra base attribute bonus which isn't ever likely to exceed 2 but can be 0. let me know your thoughts are guys, am i wasting my time? too little change or too much? help me out.
I agree that things have tilted a bit too far in favor of the unarmored finesse fighter. The only way I can see to really do it, is to use the optional encumbrance rules very strictly from the DMG.
@@captcorajus i had that discussion with my players but we discover it still favors dex with an avg capacity of 37lbs after armor(std leather) and 15-25lbs for plate with str16-18. we discussed adding to heavy armor master to include donned heavy armor doesn't count towards your encumbrance, it makes the feat less bad but doesn't fix the issue.i could bake it into the martial classes but encumbrance doesn't come up much and my players are willing to risk stashing gold and returning with retainers or pack animals.
@@tomtom7955 Well, there is one thing you can do, though it will probably really annoy your players. Continually introduce tasks that require athletics/ climbing/ lifting/ jumping. I can tell you that I did this in my group, and they learned their lessons. The 8 strength monk was the most egregious. Strength has a TON of uses in 5E, sometimes you just need to take an active role in bringing that to light. :)
@@captcorajus i have done mean things to them like trap them in a cave with a large boulder, put them in situations where had someone had a high str the outcome would have been better, at least the casters learned quickly to keep a str buff in their back pocket lol. i guess i should just be happy that fighters are way better in 5e than any other edition i have played.
No feats would make me NEVER EVER play in a game with you, Feats are a NECESSARY to the game. Also i hate the array, i get not letting me roll, just let me use point buy
So around the 23:00 mark where you specify the healing and how to scale it back, so when they do short rests they utilize a Healer's Kit, using one use, and then spend their hit dice to heal like normal. I understand that, but what I find difficulty understanding is slow natural healing. They don't use a Healer's Kit during a long rest, and instead just use a hit die to heal akin to a short rest, but how do they get hit dice back? Or do they only get those back when they retreat back to civilization? Sorry for the longwinded question, as all and all, I enjoyed your review as well as your other videos! As such, I shall subscribe and will eagerly await more content!
So what happens is when you long rest you DO NOT recover hit points... you recover your spent Hit Dice. What this means is, that if you wish to heal more, you're also going to have to take additional short rests at the beginning of the day to actually heal the damage. The net effect is that it will take TIME to heal damage, especially if they are higher level and have lots of hit points. If they are in a safe town, where its easy to find a safe spot to rest, its usually no big deal. However, if they are in a dangerous area, finding a place to take a long rest undisturbed and recover hit dice can be difficult.
Do you also limit the healer's kit usage down from 10, or limit how many they can have to limit players from just mass buying them? Or do you think that the 10 uses are adequate enough?
No, 1 healing kit is good for 10 uses. Each hit die recovered is a use of the healing kit. Mass buy is difficult also. The supplies required... bandages, needles, thread, salves and so forth are fairly easy to manufacture, but only in limited supply. So, its not like you can just go to the shop and buy a hundred of them. Supply of healing kits only really becomes an issue if they are in the wilderness for an extended period. Also, if they can find a healer (i.e. not a cleric, just someone skilled in non magical healing), healers have their own healing kits, and I'll give the players back 2HD for each use, so care of a skilled person is desired. You can have fun with it. The whole point is that it takes time to heal, and uses resources to do so. The method that you use to enforce this is up to you.
That's a tough choice, but it comes down to what EVERYONE wants to play, not just my preferences as a DM. I love Castles and Crusades, but I have to admit the character options for 5E are a lot of fun, and I enjoy the way the action economy works. If I ran C&C right now, I would totally incorporate some things from 5E, such as backgrounds, inspiration, and advantage and disadvantage. Both are well done games. I will say this, C&C is a better explained system, and very very easy to run. 5E's functionality on Fantasy Grounds is also pretty darn good. I'm a bit disappointed with C&C's functionality, and the module support there isn't great either.
I really like C&C but this video has me split. I hated the fast healing in 5E. Also even though feats are optional I couldn't really accept the idea around not using them. I have a particular set of house rules i like to incorporate around ability score progression and having feats makes those house rules completely impossible. It was only after seeing this video I thought "dude just get rid of feats." I don't like the way 5E ability scores are done when it comes to racial bonuses. I love editions past way of Humans are the bar with no modification, and other races are modified both positively and negatively around that. That way, a new player can come in and get an idea of how the races contrast against each other. The way 5E handles it might make sense mechanically, but not when comparing the abilities in terms of what they really mean. For example in older editions you compare an elf and a human and you can say: "okay, elves are more dexterous (+1 or +2 Dex), and more fragile (-1 or -2 Con) than the average person." Now in 5E not using the variant the math breaks down completely differently. Humans get a +1 to everything so when comparing a wood elf to a human in 5e elves are: more dexterous, equally as wise, less strong, less healthy, less intelligent, and less charismatic. Why are eleves less intelligent or less charismatic than humans? Doesn't make any sense. Now I understand the mechanical thinking of it and I have heard people say they don't like playing characters with ability penalties but I personally love the contrast it brought in previous editions. I am trying to figure out how to bring them back without messing with the balance of the game to much.
I like your reasoning, but that's why I use the standard array. Ability scores in 5E don't represent the same things as they did in past editions. Consider that in 1E you got an experience point boost if your prime requisite met the minimum requirements. Now, unless you multiclass there are no minimum requirements. As I said in the video, for us grognards, there's a lot of things with D&D we have to unlearn, and unthink. It took me a whole campaign before it clicked in my head for me. In this edition, more than any other, just giving the players a 'standard array' of scores gives everyone a few good stats and one bad one. The players then have control on how to place and modify them from there. That's a lot of agency for the player when it comes to their character. As far as HUMANS go, I have an idea for you, and its one I'm considering doing. I got the idea from Middle Earth Adventures. Why not dispense with the +1 in everything, and institute 'Cultures'. Give the humans +1 or +2 in a particular stat, and a choice of proficiency in one of four skills based on what region in your campaign world they are from? Say, you have a culture of nomadic horsemen, they get get a +2 to dex, a +2 to str, or a +1 to str and a +1 to dex...and proficiency in one of the four following skills: Acrobatics, Animal Handling, Athletics, or nature. This fixes your issue with the math, and makes playing humans attractive to the players. The best part is you can work with the players to determine what the bonuses and skills are for the culture, and I'm sure.... especially if your homebrewing your setting that you'll end up with some great stuff for your campaign! Game on!!
That is a very helpful idea and very useful. This will give me a great excuse to detail human cultures within my game world. I still like the idea in using some penalties if it makes sense. Aside from making certain classes less attractive is there any seriously game breaking issues that may happen from adding some penalties where it made sense? I know that volos includes some penalties in those races.
Marshall Caouette I had a feeling you might find it useful. Glad to help! I'd love to hear what you come up with. I don't see any issues that would be game breaking, though you might have an excuse as to why you don't see certain classes among that culture.
My main problem with 5e is the reluctance to try new things with the forgotten realm setting in places we have not explored much. Much of the north has been unexplored for example and Calimshan needs some love as well. WOTC is too worried of backlash to try something new it is sad.
However, Chris Perkins is not wrong, Mike Mearls is wrong in a sense. read Counterspell carefully. You cast it and interrupt the opposing caster while they are casting their spell, so in order for them to counterspell your counterspell they would have to stop casting their original spell.
While I understand your point, the order of actions as defined by the game resolves with the last action being resolved first, and the first action being resolved last. So, functionally, it looks like this: Cast fireball with an action... that action never takes place because of the reaction of counterspell... you still have your own reaction, which you use to counter the counterspell. Your action is the last action so it resolves first. If successful, the first counter spell is stopped, and that leaves you with your action to cast your fireball. :)
There really isn’t a right or wrong way to read, or interpret any rule in 5e. They are purposefully written vaguely, you are encouraged, from the words of the creators themselves, to do anything you want with them.
@@jackhartford521 Which is pretty much how it was with 1st and 2nd edition. As a DM you make the game rules fit your world. If you give your players reason for why things are done that way they can believe it better than oh this is just the DM playing god and screwing the players over. Which buy the way is the reason behind why version 3rd and 4th editions were created. Because players wanted hard fast rules instead of the DM making up house rules. Sort of full circle on this.
How could I not? Retro modules for 5E? I kinda have to, don't I? Got the book in today as a matter of fact, and I've also purchased the Fantasy Grounds version as well, so my review will be on both. This week!
So i know im a bit late to this video but i'd be curious to know if any of your opinions have changed since its release. I was all aboard the hype train followed its beta and played it extensively since then and have run into a few issues that constantly irk me that don't include how wotc as a company treats fans of the D&D line. 1) Characters without spells or some kind of innate magic are the exception, not the rule. Every class has access to innate magic. This for me has made running anything lower magic than forgotten realms difficult. If i lower the magic in the world, the party now has access to a resource no one else does. If i increase it im back to a high magic world. I think only two or three of the classes dont have magic at its core and they all have archetypes to get it. 2) Arbitrary magic restrictions and spell scaling. I thought i liked the whole use a higher spell level for a more powerful version of the spell. Turns out it just makes some spells obsolete because the scaling is low and the cost is high. also concentration is applied a bit too often. It is a good idea but most spells should be fire and forget. 3) Whack a mole factor: getting ko'd 5 times in the same fight is a bit silly. Healing magic is so easy to come by that this is a common occurrence unless i go out of my way for an npc to coup de grace a downed opponent which i started doing if they see the same guy they just thought they killed get up. 4) Last peeve im gonna mention and this one is another one that really grinds my gears. Too many people have abilities that remove portions of the game entirely. Example are both the ranger class and the outlander background, who can automatically forage and provide food for the whole party in plenty as well as "can never get lost" this requires zero checks on the player part or any player skill it basically just says dont worry about food as a resource or exploration as a game element.
Really, if anything my opinion has only gotten better as my comfort level and understanding of the rules have improved. Let me address your comments point by point. 1) Not really. YOU as DM decide what archetypes/ subclassses are available in your campaign setting. If you want to play a more 'low magic' setting then simply disallow subclasses like arcane trickster, and eldritch knight. simple. YOU decide what your players have access to. You do not have to allow every subclass and archetype available. WOTC is producing material that is meant to appeal to a wide variety of people with a wide variety of tastes and desires. Those may not align with yours. Change it. In fact you may customize your archetypes to FIT your world. I don't know if you've checked it out, but Adventures in Middle Earth shows you exactly how to customize the game for a low magic setting. 2) I do not understand how it makes spells 'obsolete'. Sorry, but you're misunderstanding something here. The exact opposite of what your saying is the case here. Casting at a higher level keeps low level spells relevant at higher levels, it doesn't make them obsolete. Sure there are some spells you'll never cast at higher level in most cases (sleep) but that's always been true with D&D. 3) Once again. Not sure what you mean here. In the rules an unconscious character is attacked with advantage, and any attack is considered a critical hit (Lose 2 death saves automatically). If you want to make things even deadlier make a death save DC 15 or better... Its your game. You decide how it works. If someone fails a death save and you don't wan't them up and running at full ability assign a level of exhaustion (or two). In my game, 1 failed death save = 1 level of exhaustion. 2 = 2 levels of exhaustion. Thuse even if they are healed back up to full, with 2 levels of exhaustion they are at disadvantage on on ability checks and their speed is halved. 4) YOU decide what backgrounds are available in your game. Don't like the outlander background.. then just disallow it. In fact, you should probably have a few 'custom' backgrounds to go with your settting to emphasized the flavor of it. The background mechanic is meant to allow a DM to showcase the special aspects of their campaign. Go for it. Make your own!! In my Primeval Thule campaign I had several custom backgrounds. PCs where human only, though I had different skills and ability score adjustments depending on what region of the continent they were from. Everyone loved it, and we had a great time. Session 0, lay out what's available. Recruit like minded players who want to play your game, and have fun. Really, that's true with every RPG. Obviously, some RPGs might just be at 'default' just what you're looking for, and you should play that game if you can find players willing to play it with you. OSR your game, customize your backgrounds, only allow those archetypes that suit your setting. Its not a smorgasbord, a la carte thing. Not every archetype, background or race makes sense for everyone's setting. The key is to simply set player's expectations at session 0, lay out your creation rules, and the reasoning behind them. In my primeval thule campaign the only arcane spell casting classes available were the bard, sorcerer and the warlock, and NONE of spell casting archetypes were available, and everyone was fine with that because they were with me on the pulpy, low magic game. Deviate from RAW. Hack the game. Make it your own. D&D has always been that kind of game and 5E, moreso then 4E or 3E is built to cater to this kind of play (i.e. less codified). The needs of your table are the needs of YOUR table, not WOTC's. Don't be afraid to tinker with the rules, and have fun with it! The entire point of 5E game design is NOT to try to account for everything. Keep that in mind and don't be afraid to consult with you players, see what they want to play and make sure it aligns with what you want to run!! Of course, there's always Castles and Crusades, which is a great game if 5E isn't your thing.
The bit about spell scaling was a lot of the spells that do scale, don’t scale well and fall out of favor because of it. Compared to older editions where magic missile for example, will always be first level but scale with your caster level. A magic missile from a 12th level wizard is scarier than a level 1 wizard. In 5e a first level magic missile is the same regardless of caster level. But it might be worth tinkering a bit more than I have been with it. I’m strong considering castles and crusades as well
@@Mike-zi4hi No matter what edition, magic missile is relatively lame at higher levels against 'prepared' opponents. A brooch of shielding makes the spell useless. Comparatively, in 5E you START with 3 missiles versus only 1 missile with one additional missile every 3 levels. So, two missiles at 4th, 3 at 7th and so on. 5e starts you with three missiles right away, and gives you 1 additional missile for every spell slot above 1st. So casting it with a 3rd level slot gives you 5 missiles!! In your example a 12th level wizard would only produce 4 missiles in 1st edition D&D, while in 5E the wizard could produce between 3 and 8 missiles. That seems 'better' to me, with a lot of added flexibility. So, I'm just not seeing how 5E is not scaling spells well at higher levels versus other editions. Now, against a higher level opponent that casts spells, I wouldn't cast magic missile at them unless they'd already used their reaction. I really like how they action economy works in 5E. One thing about 5E is that you have to give your BBEGs their legendary and lair actions and their minions. When you do that, they become VERY deadly and dangerous. Actions are king in 5E moreso than other editions, and for those coming from an older rules set, that concept might be a bit jarring.
@@captcorajus I did actually pick up a copy of C&C recently and so far im loving it should have my first game next weekend. If i do continue 5e im definitely going to bring some of these concepts over like not rolling for everything and be a bit more houserule friendly. Im just generally worried about changing the game to the point of being unrecognizable as the game people signed up to play. One of the things that i liked about C&C is the ranger and paladin are no longer spellcasting classes and making it a bit slower to heal
Meh. been playing for 40 years, and never went past level 15. I don't really see the point to be honest, but hey, as long as EVERYONE'S having fun, right?
@@captcorajus it’s all good. Been playing the same amount of time so it would be considered a players preference. I am finding some rule settings in 5e that allow for some similar 2e standards that I have always liked.
That is hard on some people. I created a cheat sheet for two of my players a Cleric - War and a Paladin. This is for the dwarf Cleric Things your PC can do during your turn (in combat) Move o move 25 feet or 5 squares on map Interact o Interact with one object or feature in the environment as you move - open a door, open a chest. To open second door or other object must Use Action to interact with a second object. Communicate o Speech (limit the number of words to 6), or gestures, or both to party members Action o Dash - Move again o Cast - spell that takes 1 action o Disengage - move away without getting an attack against you o Dodge - Until the start of your next turn attacks have disadvantage against you, IF you see the attacker. Dexterity saves also have advantage. o Help - you help one creature with a task, giving advantage on ability checks. Or distract one creature within 5 feet - the next attack roll that an ally of yours makes gets advantage. The advantage goes away when used or at the start of your next turn. Example - give a healing potion to another character or distract monster to give another PC advantage on attack. o Hide - you roll a Stealth check to attempt to hide. o Ready or Hold your Action - name a circumstance, then you take your named action (cast spell, shot, dash, …) o Search - take the time to look (Perception) or examine (Investigate) something. o Use an Item (Magic) - activate a Magic item - uses a command word or push a button. o Use an Object - pick a lock, work a lever, pull on a chain, give a healing potion to another person. o Use a Special Ability - Use a class or race feature (sense evil, turn undead, …) • Channel Divinity uses (can use 1 time until after a short or long rest) [ ] Turn Unholy (rng: 30’ undead or fiends Wis save VS your DC) (Destroy undead ½ CR ) o Attack - attack with a weapon: melee or range • Channel Divinity uses (can use 1 time until after a short or long rest) [ ] Channel Divinity: Guided Strike +10 bonus to attack roll. Bonus Action o Take a potion yourself. o Bonus Attack - if Action Attack was used can take second attack (# times = wisdom bonus) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] o Cast - any spell that has a casting of bonus action. - Divine Favor - Healing Word - Sanctuary - Shield of Faith - Magic Weapon - Spiritual Weapon - Mass Healing Word • Spiritual Weapon: Move 20’, and attack a creature within 5’ of weapon. Reaction (not on your turn) o Attack of opportunity - 1 melee attack if seen enemy moves away from you when within 5 feet. So for the spells the cleric can case Bless as their Action and as a Bonus Action cast Healing Word. Now the Counterspell would allow a Wizard to attempt to stop one of the above spells, using their reaction. A reaction only happens when it is not your turn but you are attempting to interrupt someone else's Action.
I'm not feeling it for 5th Edition. DCC RPG for me has been the definitive system or pool to take ideas from and tag on an old school system, which seems where the 5th Edition designers seem to have taken the wizard's duel thing, but it's done a lot better in DCC RPG.
while I agree that DCC RPG is definitely a much more intriguing game, I feel it lacks a lot when it comes to character customization. All fighters are the same, so two players playing a fighter would feel to be each other's clone.
First, no where in the video do I say or represent that 'action economy' is new to 5E or attempt to draw parallels to other editions. I simply said I liked the way it was done in 5E. Second, while certainly there are similarities to 3E... 5e has greatly reduced the types of actions... from 8 in 3e to 3 in 5e. 3e consisted of: Standard Action, move action, full round action, immediate action, free action, swift action, not an action, and restricted activity. 5e consists of Action, Reaction, and Bonus action. That's it. Furthermore, during a round the player gets 1 action to do many 'similar' things in 3E but they have very different effects on the game. There is no move action. You can just move your standard movement before, during or after your action. During your action you can: Attack Cast a spell Dash (take another move) Disengage Dodge help hide ready search use an object Bonus actions only occur during various game effects, or are activated as part of certain class abilities Reaction Actions occur only as defined by certain triggers in the game. In 3E as part of your STANDARD action you can: Attack Cast a spell Activate a magic item Total Defense Draw or Sheathe a weapon Ready or loose a shield manipulate an item direct or redirect a spell stand up There are shared similarities.. but the application has been greatly simplified, cleaned up, redefined and shifted. There's also a bit of 4E tossed in there as well (Triggered Actions). I hope that clears everything up.
@@captcorajus "First, no where in the video do I say or represent that 'action economy' is new to 5E or attempt to draw parallels to other editions. I simply said I liked the way it was done in 5E. " I suppose I misunderstood when you said around 8:50 "Another highlight of 5E's creativity is the action system." The wording and tone of your voice throughout the next minute sounded like 5E created those action types or the action system. Also, when you said, "The action economy of 5E . . . is a new concept" (13:17) it is ambiguous whether you meant that action economy as a concept is new or just that 5E's redesign of that already-existing concept is new. "Second, while certainly there are similarities to 3E... 5e has greatly reduced the types of actions... from 8 in 3e to 3 in 5e. 3e consisted of: ..." Technically, perhaps, but the way it is done in practice in 3E is there are 4 action types (5 or more if you distinguish the various types of "bonus" actions: free, immediate, swift, etc.) - Full-round, Standard, Move, and "Bonus." The only real difference I see is that 5E doesn't have specialized Full-round actions (?) and it groups all sorts of non-standard, non-move actions under the heading of "Bonus." That doesn't really feel very new to me, but per your clarification you didn't actually say that 5E is new in this regard to actions. Everything else you said about the similarities and differences only reinforces my point that 5E didn't really do much that is new or creative regarding actions. Also, some of the things you listed under 3E standard actions are actually move actions (draw a weapon, e.g.), but that's not relevant here. The way movement in 5E is done is radically different, however. It allows for shoot on the run and use of cover more, which is a cool innovation, but it nullifies the 3E-style feats that allow those types of movement as a special character feature. Anyway, the reason behind my comment was that when I compare how actions in 3E and in 5E are handled in-practice at the table. There isn't any meaningful difference, and your wording and tone of voice when talking about how actions are done in 5E made it sound like you were saying 5E came up with the _actions on a player's turn_ concept as something completely new and different compared to older editions. I hope you understand that based on the title and purpose of this video and the way you talked about it, it was confusing. My ultimate conclusion on the topic: After five years of researching 5E, talking to players and GMs who use it, and reading through its rule books, I still think 3E is superior in so many ways. Maybe 1% at best of 5E material is anything I would consider using in a TTRPG. The whole modern state of D&D, exemplified by 5E and the philosophy of gaming that surrounds it makes me very sad. I don't even want to say that I play D&D anymore if this is what it has become. The intent of being easier to play, lowering barriers to entry, being more inclusive, etc. I am 100% behind, but the approach and execution on those intents was a massive fail. It's like a player describing a heroic action and then rolling a 1. 5E is a critical failure, despite its good intentions.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself I can agree on most points or at least conclude its really worth arguing over minutia except for, "... but the approach and execution on those intents was a massive fail. " That's demonstrability not true as 5E has outsold 3E and 4E combined. If the system issues were as big a failure as you're implying, it seems unlikely that it would have as big a following as it has. Whether you agree or disagree on systematic changes, what you can't classify 5E as is a failure. :)
I'm surprised you don't limit the archetypes to the basics (champion, thief etc). And you didn't talk about Spells. For me the countless saving throws to spells becomes hand holding as does the Concentration rules.
I'm really a minimalist when it comes to rule alterations. I see no reason to limit one of the more interesting aspects of 5th edition. Further, I think the concentration rule is a great rule. Clerics in 3E were ridiculously OP, and the concentration rule puts a limit on such things without needing complex rules for stacking. I also agree that spells need either an attack or a saving throw to affect another character. I don't see that as handholding. Spells in 5E pack a lot more punch than they did in earlier editions, but with the saving throw and concentration rules, they are easily reigned in.
I'm not knocking the need for an attack or saving throw, what came to mind were spells like web. Why in the world do I need to concentrate on web? Or Flesh to Stone that gives you a saving throw every turn. As for the Archetypes we'll have to agree to disagree. There are so many of them and they are so varied. I think to make it feel truly old school,limiting each class to one archetype is right level.
***** You need to concentrate so you can't spam the spell, and then go crazy with it, coating a massive area with web. Flesh to stone effectively 'kills' a creature instantly, regardless of hit points. High level creatures will not be able to be taken out so easily, especially with a wizard with a low save DC.
Exactly my point. In the old games if you got caught in the web, you were caught! Start getting that touch out and burn baby burn. I too like 5e including Advantage/disadvantage, short /long rest and above all making a turn and round what the average person would think it to be. but it is very much a game geared toward millennials.
How do I dress palyers that want to bild the own special snow flake pc (check EN world level up 5e) because they think mechanics are used to making a nice pc instead of fluff
I just state what content is available in my game. I'm certainly going to allow players to use their imagination, but at the end of the day this is a game, and it has rules. As referee I'm going to play with the rules I feel comfortable with. I'm a player to. I generally say, "use these guidelines and have fun. If you play in my campaign you're going to have blast!" If that's too much for them, I say 'Find another Table then, thank you for your interest."
@@captcorajus I`m very open if they cme to me and I can be decided on a case by case base otherwise if just say hey the official stuff expert this or that any other stuff ask me and the gfroupe if the want special concepts we work them out together
11:33 Funny how neither Mearls or Perkins cites an actual rule. They just say "yes" or "no." Seems to me they didn't put much thought into their answers. (I am sorry, but I am not a huge fan of either of these guys, especially Mearls. Their marketing efforts seem to me as part of the root cause behind what I see as the main problem with D&D today -- i.e., the way people seem to play the game now, with more emphasis of non-thematic diversity within a party (so that they have too many personal goals that can reduce the ability of the party to unite behind a common goal) and farcical characters that, when in the hands of inexperienced players, can lead to situations where the players are not working together as a team to survive and solve problems, more just overdeveloping their tragic flaws in such a way as to actually stunt the party's growth. Their UA-cam vids for 4e & 5e, along with those of Critical Clowns, tend to turn the game into a badly done high school improv class rather than a team-oriented problem-solving game.)
To me the biggest problem with 'modern D&D' is a bunch of old school grognards 'diversity whining' about the focus on diversity. I don't mean to offensive, but I really don't see what the problem is. Play at the table how you want, but if you love D&D I don't understand why this is so bothersome to people. The default setting for D&D, and games like it are teens to middle aged white men. That's the majority demographic of the people who play the game by no small mearsure. WOTC, and EVERY game company recognize that if they are going to expand their business they are going to have to find a way to expand into other markets.. women, and minorities. You do this by focusing various marketing projects to reflect the markets you want to tap into. ALL businesses do this. If we want this hobby to continue, it needs to grow and expand. As far as Critical Role goes, I think its great. If I was going to be 'critical' of it, I would say Mercer's style is a bit 'railroady' but they seem to be having fun playing his game, and certainly they are an entertaining group of folks, and I enjoy watching them on occasion. More importantly... Critical Role, other shows like it, and Game streaming platforms have absolutely been a primary factor in the game's massive resurgence over the last few years. The game has met and exceeded its popularity from the 80s, and the reason for this is because for the first time ever, you don't have to try and explain to people what the game is, you can just show them. It takes the 'mystery shroud' over what the game is about and makes it accessible. To me, that's a good thing because it means more people are playing and sustaining the hobby. Its good for all of us. Thank you for your comment.
From what I can see, there are really two major strains within the OSR community. The first type is dissatisfied with or seek an alternative to WOTC's comic-booky superhero fantasy with video-game-like mechanics version of D&D because they simply don't like that sort of game or game tone. (If people actually want to play that way, that's fine, but for me it impoverishes the experience so I will play a different game.) The other side -- which I'd rather not be associated with, thank you -- is a more politically alt-right type which includes not only certain "old grognards" but also some younger assholes (some of whom might me white supremacist or male supremacists) who seek to suppress diversity because they are afraid of losing power. (I will not give any names, but warn people to be careful what products you buy if you support democratic values. Certainly, WOTC is thankfully not an alt-right company, and I do not criticize them from an alt-right perspective because I don't hold alt-right values.) Of course, there is no monolithic OSR opinion, even within the categories I suggest. The reason I come to your channel is because you do not seem to have a shred the latter motivation. I have gone so far as to block certain other UA-camrs based on the homophobic, sexist and racist tones they set -- and I would NEVER buy their products regardless of quality, because I don't support assholery. Thanks. PS -- Critical Role is a bunch of actors, in a finely edited program. So yes it might appear to be "fun" because the actors are paid to make it that way, but it is an advertisement for a WOTC (i.e., pre-programmed, farcical and video-game-like) style of D&D. It's a railroad because these people are actors and they have a general script (that proposes a track to be improvised) for show.
@@BTsMusicChannel I can't agree with your evaluation of CR, as I don't see it being a scripted show. They play for HOURS on a weekly basis. Scripting something like that would simply require too much work. As far as the other aspects, I don't adhere to any philosophy... right or left. I adhere to decency, inclusion, respect, kindness, empathy, reason, logic and a good bit of humility. I try to approach my channel with those things in mind. :)
Well, I certainly am not a Democrat or Republican, but some of what I see in the "alt-right" version of OSR (as I call it), it is absolutely sickening. What I mean by "script" on CR is the railroad itself, nothing more. Thanks...this is a great channel, one of my favorites of this type! I'd argue that what you adhere to is democratic values and the philosophy of the enlightenment.
Well if running a humanocentric game as it is stated in the 1st edition DMG makes me a racist well I guess I am. Its sad to see this good channel become an alt-left wing mouth piece. No Dragon born and no Tiefling. I don't care about what the player's race or sex is. The problem I have with critical role is that if you have 4 or more hours to watch that thing. Why not get together with your friends and play your own game? Put the 4 + hours to a lot better use. Keep the alt-left crap out of here.
We abandoned this version for Basic Fantasy and some other older games when the politics and hate-spewing trolls became too loud and obvious to ignore.
I disagree with your criticism of 5E healing. I like it that my players can fully heal in 8hrs, once within a 24 hr period. It greatly reduces the amount of time players spend going back and forth between town and dungeon because they need to go heal up. It keeps the players in the adventure rather than halting the game for extended periods of healing.
You're free to disagree, but this is a channel that caters to 'old school' role playing, which focuses on resource management. 'OSR your game' is in the video's title. Knowing that injuries are long lasting forces players to conserve spells, potions, and resources, which is the style of play for OSR games. Further.. sometimes, its when the characters are 'hold up' in town, recovering from their injuries that other dramatic story opportunities present themselves. This is a choice for style of play that isn't so 'action focused' on just forays back and forth between the town and the dungeon. One can debate the term 'realism' in a game with dragons, but it certainly isn't very dramatic if even the most debilitating injuries the heroes can just slug off without consequence or care, and everything is just hunky-dory the next day. 'viedo-gamey' is the term that gets thrown around with this style of play. If that's what makes your group happy, awesome, but a lot of players are looking for a different kind of challenge, and that's what this video was about.
@@captcorajus don't misunderstand me, I'm an old school player, started with the Holmes edition in 1979. Most of your OSR suggestions for 5E I was already doing. For example I have never allowed feats in my 5E campaigns, no multi classing and I limit player races to the traditional player races. I like the 5E healing system as written again because it simply keeps the players in the dungeon for longer stretches. Especially at the lower levels. As far as realism goes I would posit that 5E is not an ideal system for that. Hit points in 5E are described more like a character's endurance, that only the last few hit points equate to severe wounds. Easier for me to just run an AD&D campaign when we want to play "Old School". For the record my favorite iteration of 1st Edition AD&D is Kenzerco's 4E Hackmaster system which took the best of AD&D and created an old school system on steroids.
@@deanm375 Understood. My argument wasn't that it was 'unrealistic' however. It goes to style of play. I don't WANT my player characters just traipsing back and forth from Dungeon to town on a whim. I don't want them jumping from one combat encounter to the next without care because 'they'll get better' tomorrow. I want them worried that if they aren't careful they might find themselves low on hit points or healing spells if they don't conserve. For that reason, overnight healing does not work for me. How good or bad my suggestion in this case is, really depends on what it is you're going for in your campaign. That's all I was saying. :) In addition, for those DMs like me who might not be satisfied with the status quo, I wanted to point out that the DMG offered some great alternatives.
@@captcorajus I agree with most of what you just wrote. I try to find the balance between challenging and punishing, having fun not being frustrated. I've ended hundreds of PC's careers. When the players throw caution aside their PCs usually pay for it. Sometimes though, a group can have a really bad stretch of dice rolling and the 5E healing rules are much more forgiving in those situations, instead of me as a DM fudging my own dice rolls to compensate for a group's bad luck versus bad player choices. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I really do enjoy your videos despite our differing point of view on this topic.
@@deanm375 I get what you're saying. However, 5E is very forgiving in other ways. Revivify, death saves, etc.. its possible to die in 5e, but unlikely. My style of play is that I roll all combat dice out in the open. Attack and damage dice. I'm unforgiving in that way.... but as I said, its a matter of preference, and as long as the groups are having fun, either way is appropriate. I enjoy the comments, especially when they differ from my opinions. Thanks for the fun discussion!
With regards to spells, rules and actions, does it not give dm's and groups the ability to house rule things if there is ambiguity on how rules are interpreted?
Well, that's why I recommended a look at the Sage Advice compendium. Some of the peculiar editing choices with rule explanations can lead to misreading of the rules. That's not to say that RAW is wrong. The rules are very good when applied as intended, and there is a definite well though out reasoning behind them. Which is also why I suggested looking at the DMG's Chapter 9 for ways to modify the rules before coming up with an original house rule. If you try to 'fix' a rule you feel is broken due to a misinterpretation at later levels that can come back to bite you on the ass. My suggestion is for someone in the group, it doesn't have to be the DM, but certainly its better if it is, to read the SA Compendium. Its not that long at all, but the answers therein will definitely clarify things for you, and give you a good idea on how to interpret ambiguous situations that might crop up.
5e is a pasteurized product, can't believe you liked it... the art is worse, the whole art direction is bland and all that watercolor tearing the picture in half GOD DAMN IT! PCs born heroes on lvl 1, only a DM's true desire can kill a PC and the list goes on... do you still like 5E in 2022 or it was just because 4E was so terrible that we accepted 5E with open arms... that explain why OSR is growing each day
I liked it when it came out... and still do, but with tweeks. I never played it 'as written.' The back of the DMs guide have some solid suggestions on how to make the game grittier as the video describes. What killed 5E for me was the fact that it is poorly written, and there are too many things in the game that are just too 'gamey' and kill suspense. (pact chain warlock is a mess) I'd run or play it in a heartbeat if asked to, but with modifications. That said, 5E 100% has a DM problem. Its a bear to run. The challenge rating system is useless, and the budge system for encounters is nonsense. I'm running Hyperborea now and EVERYONE loves it.
@@captcorajus I remember when Warlock or Witch was a wizard Kit in AD&D2ndE " Complete Wizard Handbook." The only reason some players played a witch was cause it had the benefit of creating potions at lower level caster level.
Sorry man but this system is Dry as a Dust Bowl.Skill progression is Lack luster an uninspiring. Characters seem Cookie Cut. more has been extracted from 3 and 4 e, Very little From 1st and 2nd Ed .played through Lost mines, was NOT impressed.If we get a 6th ed i hope we get More from 1st and 2nd ed
Love your channel, and I suppose it's 'your channel, your rules' but I can't fathom why you would discuss 5e in the same breath as "old school". Even setting aside the fact that it's an abomination, its literally the newest AD&D there is!
I don't consider it an 'abomination' I consider the best edition is the one that you're having fun playing.. I also recognize that a lot of players are coming into the hobby and those player will eventually (and are) look for something different, or more challenging and that's an opportunity to introduce the OSR to newer, younger people. The goal of this channel, is, and always has been to be a gateway for people to learn about the game's past, to feature new material, the best creators and to promote fun. :)
Im 12 and I've got 3 of my friends into 5e. Ive never played any other edition but i have an uncle who has played since 1e. My dad and other uncle have played when they were little and my dad still has some of the old models. Me and my friends have been playing a lot and I love your videos and the work you put into them
That's about the age I got my little red box of "Basic Set"... :-)
@@BlackJar72 similar - 1986-- 6th grade, 11 years old Red Box BECMI, and by 87 I was into 1e AD&D.
I know you're older now, but when I was 12 I cut my teeth on 3.5E.
If you still game, I suggest checking out Pathfinder Second Edition.
5 years flew by - do you still play?
Recently in a 5e campaign I DM, the party came upon a hostile "Temple of the Old Gods" in a lower level of a dungeon, and the inhabitants they met near the entrance were surprised to see things like an elf cleric in the party. When the party entered the temple proper, we switched to B/X character sheets and used B/X rules. The level 6 characters felt more vulnerable with less hp, but the AC and PC attack modifiers, while figured differently, were about the same! The monsters, however, missed a lot more often and also had less hp, but they would trouble the party by fleeing, regrouping, and casting fell magics, and so it was fun. Upon exiting the Temple, we played using 5e again, but it was interesting to revisit an edition I hadn't run in years and compare it to the 5e I run now.
This made me reassess my current play style. For example, it's satisfying as a player to see your opponents fail morale and flee; I usually role-play it now, but I wonder if I should experiment with the morale rolls option in the 5e DMG now. At the least, it made a memorable "evil temple".
might be a stupid question but what is b/x?
@@tomtom7955 B/X refers to the Basic and Expert set that was published in '77. It was intended to be an entry point for players new to tabletop gaming, something to learn and play around with before getting into the more complicated AD&D, but it ended up being pretty popular on its own.
This is a really cool idea.
D&D 5e is the best thing to happen to the dungeons and dragons game in the new era... *it revitilized the interest in medieval RPGs.*
Agreed!
@@captcorajus I don't agree, 5E is not really an Old School style game and definitely not a medieval RPG, actually D&D has never tried to be so.
I would say that 5E revived interest in the D&D brand, not in medieval RPG's. In any case, D&D has never been a medieval game, it is a game based upon the fantasy fiction of the early and mid 20th century, and also on ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Sumerian Mythology, to name a few.
It is most strongly influenced, according to Gary Gygax, by Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories and only loosely based on medieval realities. It is a mix, and 5E returned D&D closer to its narrative roots than had 2nd ed, 3.0, and 4E.
Is 5E a good game, yes, but it does not deserve this particular accolade.
@@clivestewart1607 Where did I say D&D was a Medieval game?? Never said that. I was responding to the comment.
But you are right, D&D is not 'Medieval' but it IS fantasy.... and fantasy literature technology, especially D&D, is usually based off of that of Medieval Europe. Most people generalize the two, but regardless of how you say it, the meaning is understood by most.
If you've watched any other videos on my channel, I've covered in depth D&D origins and influences, which not only includes Vance but many other Pulp era authors such as Robert E Howard, Clarke Ashton Smith, among many others. :)
I don't view Old School as a 'system' but more of a style of play... i.e. Resource management being important, the threat of death being more palpable, puzzles and tricks that frequently challenge the PLAYER rather than the statistics on the character sheet. If you're playing this way, you're playing old school.
This video was specifically made to instruct on how to bring those old school sensibilities to modern D&D. I see no 'accolades' to be given here.
@@captcorajus All I am saying is I disagree that 5E revived interest in Medieval Style RPG. Why it does not deserve to be stated as reviving interest in Medieval RPG is because other games and systems, Pathfinder being the best example kept this "Medieval RPG" interest alive and strong..
I disagreed with that concept. Its not a big deal.
And I have watched every one of your videos, and this one and agree with you that 5E can easily be used to create the Old School D&D experience, the Dungeon Master guide and a few changes can make it so, and your ideas how to do it are very valid.
I love the videos you make and I am a subscriber.
To add, watching your videos inspired me to re open up my original Basic and Expert boxes of D&D I bought in 1981 and start playing through Keep on the borderlands with my 5E group using the basic and expert rules.
I've always wanted to run an "old school" campaign, weaving in classic modules starting with the venerable The Village of Hommlet and ending with The Throne of Bloodstone (converted to 5e rules of course!)
I'm extremely lucky to have found your channel as this video is exactly what I've been looking for as a starting point, so thank you very much for this video!
I like how easy it is to incorporate any older edition modules in a 5E campaign without a serious work over. I've also found the reduced stat creep to really help with younger players. The character bonds/flaws is a good addition for character creation. Thanks for the video.
I totally agree. I love all the new people getting into the game. My gaming group is really flourishing with the release of 5E, and after a bit of a rocky start with it, as a DM I've started hitting my stride with this rule set. Which is why I was a bit frustrated with the way the rules were written. For those of us Grognards that have been playing since 1E, there's a lot of clutter in my brain that had to be cleaned up and reorganized. lol.... the definition of a 'Turn' for example is a biggie.
I love the action economy mechanics, I love the way spell casting for wizards is done, I love background, inspiration, advantage/ disadvantage. All FUN things that elevates 5E, and makes it a strong rule set. Thus, it breaks my heart a little that many of these great concepts are poorly explained in the rules.
I like the ability to pick backgrounds, I have some players that never created a character background and others that did. Now if they cannot think of something for them self, I have the pick from the 5e backgrounds, one player just rolled randomly, but they have a background that I can work with.
One of my favourite introductions was the option of experience milestones, allowing me to do away with crunching numbers for experience points and just let them level up every couple of adventures.
I'm also a big fan of the standard array.
I always love watching your videos. I didn't realize how much your channel has affected my own efforts till now.
To put it as simple as possible after 20+ years of gaming 5e is a dream come true for me. Nice overview as always sir.
Thanks a lot!! Glad you enjoyed!
You can change the mechanics all you want, but if your DM is a "Monty Haul" type, then that will set about ruining the balance anyway. This isn't a complaint mind you, just an observation. You can take the player/DM out of the video game, but you cant take the video game out of the player/DM.
True words. 😃
Really love your "aspects of OSR play" genius and could not agree more. Going to write this right in my DM journal! Not only that but your "OSR your game" section of your video fixes all my issues with 5e! Thank you! By the way your channel is great don't stop making videos!!!
Wow! Thanks you. Exactly why I make my videos, so glad it helped!
Great tips on making 5E have that more old-school feel. Great work as always!
Thanks! I'm in a large 5E forum on Facebook, and reading all the questions from new and experienced players and DMs, I had a feeling that some of what I'd been doing, or had learned (through the old reliable school of hard knocks) might be useful to others. Thanks for watching and the compliment!
If you are familiar with 5e and want to skip ahead to the OSR recommendations, 19:00
Cap, I have commented on some of your videos in the past because it was great to see so many of the old 1st ed and Basic/Expert adventures and books covered on your channel (along with other games like WEG Star Wars and V&V). I watched these videos on 5E, and while I found them interesting, I was not exactly interested in picking back up with another version of the game. When the lockdown began earlier this year, my youngest son (almost 9) expressed interest in trying some RPGs with me and we tried V&V and messed around a bit with Pathfinder characters. As he was enjoying those games I decided to by the 5E start set and essentials kit (I believe in part because of what I recalled from your reviews) and give them a try with my son. We both loved them, and in short order picked up the three core 5E rulebooks!
Awwww... that's great. THANK YOU so much for sharing your story with me.
@@captcorajus You welcome Cap. To add to my comment, last Friday my son took his first turn behind the DM's screen, introducing one of his cousins to D&D by creating a small dungeon and running a game for my nephew. My brother told me they had a great time, playing for hours.
Hello All! I would like to add one homebrew rule we use, which we think makes the game more difficult yet makes it feel more real. We simply impose disadvantage on every skill check a character makes in which he/she is not proficient with. We just found it ridiculous that you can role on anything and a barbarian rolling on Arcana with a lucky 20 can beat the party wizard. :)
Its a drastic measure for sure, but in game it feels right. And for instance a bards Jack of all the Trade simply removes this disadvantage rather then adding half proficiency.
Counterspell rules: it's not D&D, but Magic The Gathering. Let it sink.
Great job. Another fine presentation and you capture much of how I see it also. I will admit that I miss that Gygaxian touch. Somehow it feels like they wanted to stay away from anything that could even the hint at channeling Gygax.
Don't know how I missed this one, but truly great work. Thank you! I've been in 3.5 campaigns over the last few years after a long absence from the hobby, and agree the game has become superheroes in the Middle Ages. All that lavished ability does is replace the need for clever thinking. Having to strive for success is what I enjoy most about D&D. This is not a linear video game with a big battle versus an arch villain waiting patiently for you to follow specific steps. D&D writes itself with every action taken, and evolves. To adapt, overcome, and improvise, is where lies the challenge and greatest fun! Cheers!
Thanks so much for the kind words!!
I actually like the customization feats give you. I agree with your other suggestions though. I would also add the following:
1. The DM rolls certain checks in secret. This preserves the suspense when searching for or disarming traps, sneaking, or trying to bluff your way through the guards.
2. Foraging for and keeping track of material components. Give certain spells that conjure stuff out of thin air material components. This is a neat way to limit the number of uses of the more powerful spells (hello Goodberry) and introduces the aspect of resource management that older editions had.
3. Encumbrance.
4. Exploration rounds. Bring back the 'each action the players wish to do takes a fixed amount of time' rule.
I broke down and created a twitter account just so I could post a question for Zoltar and the devs. Never got an answer. So I caved again and created a twitch account to make a D&D Beyond account to look up and test items so I could finally get an answer to my question. Funny thing is, it wasn't even my question. There was confusion in one of the D&D5E Facebook groups about similarly named magic items stacking. Turns out a cloak of protection and a ring of protection stack in 5E.
Yes. The limiting factor in 5E is magic item slots and attunement.
Great video! What I have added to my 5e campaign is 1 level of exhaustion to the player character each time they are dropped to 0 hps and are brought back though healing to make going to 0 hps more serious. Of course the only way to remove the level is exhaustion is an 8 hour rest! I also use your suggestion of no Feats and, due to my horrible experiences with power gamers from Adventurers League, multi classing.
Yeah, I use the exhaustion rule myself. Absolutely.
Hi! Very nice overview of the 5e! Nevertheless, I have to point out several points:
1) if you cast Counterspell (components: Somatic) against an enemy caster, they can cast Counterspell against your Counterspell, but they would lose the spell they are casting if it has a Somatic component, because they are interrupting their own spell. On the other hand, if the enemy wizard is casting Dimension door (Component: Verbal), and you cast Counterspell, they can Counterspell your Counterspell without interrupting their own spell.
2) Challenge Rating is quite correct in assessing the difficulty of an encounter IF YOU ARE NOT USING MULTICLASSING NOR FEATS, both of which are optional. The monsters in MM have been created without considering those rules. In my personal experience, if you add feats to the game, just add a 10% to everything in the monster stat (AC, HP, bonus to attack, bonus to damage, DC of monster abilities), as well as in the number of monster in an encounter. If you allow multiclassing, I would add at least a 30%. With both, 50% more.
I Like to watch your channel especially the revies one the 5e ports of classic adventures
I'm highly tempted to run the Mystara setting using 5e.
Your channel is incredible. Thank you so much for all of this.
thank you for the kind words! I try!
Way late to the party here, but regarding challenge ratings... holy crap thank you! I agree wholeheartedly about its total useless. I tend to go by "milestone" experience anyway, and it's never that hard to gauge the difficulty of a fight with a creature from just reading its stats.
Yeah, I've been running 5e since it came out and I've not once ever calculated a 'budget' or any of that other nonsense. :D
Backgrounds go even further back, to Empire of the Petal Throne (TSR 1975).
I wish I had seen this video before I got my 5E group going. They are superheroes without question. Very difficult to challenge even at level 9. A couple of them are "optimizers" which doesn't help. Their stats are extremely good, they have too much/too powerful magical items (my fault). I'd probably DM 5E again if I were to use your OSR options from the start. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I'm now exploring many other game systems since losing interest in 5E; I've spent a great deal of money on DCC (Goodman Games), Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed of (Modiphius), Godbound (amazing book highly recommend by Kevin Crawford), Vampire the Masquerade 5th ed (Modiphius/White Wolf/Onyx or whoever they are now), and I recently ordered Castles and Crusades and Amazing Adventures (Troll Lord Games).
I understand where you're coming from. Let me makes some additional suggestions that might help you 'challenge' them more, even those min/ maxers in your group.
ACTIONS. I can't overstate this enough. With all the special abilities that characters of in 5E, you need to 'optimize' your monsters as well. Multi attack is a great option from the onset. You can 'just give' monsters more attacks. There's nothing that says you can't and in fact, it specifically says you can! Do it.
Bonus actions. Give them abilities that take effect on a bonus action. To be fair, such abilities usually are only good between short or long rests or have a 'recharge 5-6'.
Traits: Give them abilities that work in tandem with their own allies. An example of this is pack tactics that give an attacker advantage if an ally is within 5ft. The DMG has a comprehensive list of abilities you can give monsters, and Matt Collville has a great video on adding 4E monster abilities to 5E monsters. Its worth checking out.
Reactions: Give them abilties that let them attack on reactions. A favorite mine is 'spear defense'. This is for those working in formation with shield and spear. Whenever an enemy attacks an ally within 5ft the creature can use their reaction to make a spear attack.
Your BBEG NEED their legendary actions. Remember, LAs can be used at any point during the round, and even interrupt a PC's action. Do it and don't be shy about it.
Along with that is Lair actions! Initiative count 20, spring a good one on them. That'll keep them on their toes!
This is the way the game is suppose to be played. Modify your monsters according to your party's strengths and weaknesses. Used ranged attacks against spell casters. Include healers. Use spell casters with area effect attacks.
I promise, if you up the ante your encounters will become much more challenging, and your players with love/ hate you for it!
@@captcorajus Thanks! These are outstanding suggestions! Running a B/X - Lamentations of the Flame Princess game tonight but will definitely restart my 5E game. I'm sure my friends will be excited to play their level nines again.
also healing... we added in if your healed (spell) after hitting negative HP's you gain a level of exhaustion, if the player is stabilized to ZERO then healed it is all normal
Yeah, that's right out of the DMG. We play that also.
Not sure what took me so long to find this video but it was GOOD!
If you want a real game killer, the +3 Vorpal Sword from 1st/2nd Ed
After introducing my fiancé to D&D via 1st edition (seriously house modded of course), I am thinking it's time to bust out some 5e at our table. Mostly because I want her to be familiar with the newer ruleset in case we attend a Con where it's being played. But, I just keep putting it off. As a matter of fact, we've started playing the absolutely brilliant Dungeon Crawl Classics as of late, and that has kept 5e from the table now. Your reviews are always so informative; I'm hoping this will invigorate my desire to learn/run 5e.
re: the last segment of the video, I'd happily give up all magic items if it meant I could have feats.
No feats! lol
Yuk. Feats was video game garbage in 3rd and its video game garbage now
Hi captain! I found your channel recently, and like it very much. Thanks!
I'm wondering if, after a couple of years of playing 5e, you have new insights about it. Do you love it even more, found neat stuff that was not obvious from the beginning? Do some stuff now seems less great, or downright problematic? I've been playing it (and mastering it) for a couple years now (I still do), and my views evolved. Curious about yours!
Thanks!
I still like it, but i don't play much after the characters reach 14th level. I'm on my second campaign at this point.
The biggest problem with 5E is that a lot of its concepts are not explained in the rules. It needs a glossary.... badly.
Also, a lot of the rules are not put in the right place. For example: You can use Acrobatic to escape a grapple, but this is not mentioned or even referenced under the acrobatic skill. I mean, shouldn't there at least be a note saying, "See page 195, escaping a grapple"?
The rules are rife with this kind of thing, like I said in my video.... its annoying AF.
Otherwise, I'm fine with it, and do enjoy playing it, though running it has its frustrations. There are too many abilities and spells that circumvent traditional puzzles and problems. If you ever run a 1E module for 5E you'll find this out quick.
@@captcorajus Wow, thanks for the very quick response! I must say that I agree with you about the unexplained rules and general organization of the book (I've been using my PHB for years, now, and I *still* sometimes have a hard time finding what I'm looking for), but that not a major point for me : I ask players to print whatever special powers/spells/ability their PC have (so referencing the book is not necessary), and I'm pretty loose about ability checks (usually letting the player use many different skills to accomplish the same activity if it makes sense). It's clearly a bad thing, but it does not really affect me or my game that often.
I also agree with you about the fact that many abilities and spells trivially solves a lot of problem. That is, in my opinion, much more of a pain, since it detracts from the game on two different levels.
First, it directly makes a lot of problem-solving and exploration useless. For example, my players found a tunnel flooded by a fountain in the entrance of a cave. There was a secret lever outside, but a simple cantrip (Shape Water) let the sorcerer reverse the flow of the fountain long enough to drain the tunnel. That's nice thinking, I'm not complaining about that, but it shows that a lot of traditional puzzles are basically meaningless in a 5e game. Same goes for traditional ressource management : light is a cantrip, a ranger will basically eliminating any danger for overland travel/hexcrawling, etc.
Second, and this is especially unfortunate, it discourages players' imagination and direct them to their PC sheet for answer. That's also true for combat. The relative advantage you can get from great planning is inconsequential compared to being freshly rested.
I still have fun and all, but I'm less and less inclined to think think that 5e is such a good fit for OSR games.
@@RayRobidoux I really think 5e is a great system, but it goes overboard in certain ways that end up detracting from it. So I couldn't agree with your assessment more.
However, if you look at certain things, and let me give you a prime example, "Adventures in Middle Earth" Where the classes and magic have been altered to reflect the setting, is really good.
I think for us older/ OSR fans there could be a 'rewrite' so to speak that keeps the best aspects of the system, but alters classes, spells and abilities to reflect old school sensibilities would be a great product.
@Joe Blow Okay Grognard
Every edition of Traveller started with some level of background creation. Mongoose Traveller 1 had this sorted out while the over powered 4E was Wizard's solution.
Been watching these videos to get a better understanding of the old school vibe. The death around the corner thing is always a weird critique. As a 5e dm ive never struggled to slay a player character and ive usually have to scale back even basic encounters sometimes. 5e is deadly. Its not like that wasn’t there.
Yes, its deadly. No doubt, but given the various tools at their disposal, even basic cantrips, the chance of actual dearth is very small in comparison to old school play, and this is even more pronounced once the PC hit 3rd level. In addition the Heal over night rule actually HURTS the game, and in a very subtle way.
Keep in mind, that I'm also a 5E DM, running it from the very beginning and 3 full campaigns from level 1 to 14, so I'm not looking at it from the outside.
The core issue... and if you've never played old school its not readily apparent is that having to stop in town an heal is.... DOWNTIME. Note that because of the heal over night rule, 5E actually has to incorporate a 'downtime' rule. With old school play its innate to the game.
Fighters need to heal, wizards need to scribe scrolls and research spells, clerics need to brew potions and visit their order, thieves need to touch base with their guild, etc. DOWNTIME is where the real seeds of the campaign occur, but with the way 5E plays out, it wirlwinds the characters into one adventure to the next.
The other issue with 5E is that magic tends to fix EVERYTHING. Prime example... I narrate that the characters are trudging through a swamp, covered in mud, stinging insects etc. They finally find a dry spot to rest and try and recover from the exhausting trek. Then the wizard casts prestidigitation on everyone repeatedly and they're all clean. Rugged trek atmosphere through muggy swamp... destroyed.
Another example: Pact of the Chain Warlock's familiar... turns invisible, changes form, and the warlock can 'see' through the familiar as long as they are on the same plane of existence. Thus.. there's no real reason to explore the dungeon directly. Everyone hangs around outside while the warlock's familiar does all the dirty work.
The core issue is that magic is too ubiquitous for my personal tastes. Certainly some may have fun with this style of play and 5E is a good game, but there are legitimate criticisms.
I think if 5E play isn't doing it for some people, they might enjoy the challenges posed by old school play. That's all.
@@captcorajus
First off, wow. Thanks for an immediate and detailed response
I do agree that, especially if you’re judging by the older variants of the game its the easiest its ever been to heal yourself.
ive been at 5e for a while, admittedly ive only dm’d millennials and zoomers but I’ve had very long can captivating games with them. Occasionally years at a time.
I think these problems exist via purely by the book play. I think how you run it is important.
Not that “just play it better” or “differently” is a good argument. I think there’s an expectation of specific hand holding, and telling the dm directly through books how to handle those situations.
Cus slower more constructed play has lead to those moments still existing in my campaigns. Augments like general exhaustion from magically exerting themselves. Or one of my favorites is “Full Hp doesn’t stop your arm from being broken.” The understanding that cure light wounds is not strong enough to fix a ruined limb like that. Another good one i use is Curses like lycanthropy are to strong to be removed by remove curse or greater restoration; but those spells do reveal the steps to save the lycanthrope.
These are changes in decided to make usually on the spot but its not like someone following the rules as written would make that kind of change.
And i think that there is, at least a vibe, that if these things aren’t written out explicitly they might as well not exist. Which can be a single-issue-reason why people don’t like or wanna play 5e.
Like, i learned from my players that most of them Killed Strahd in CoS really early were only afraid of him because how i run the vampire. i think that happens because most dms see the book, and actually try to use the shitty gust of wind spell on his unchanged statblock. Cus they think he must be ran as the statblock says it must.
Maybe its too bold to say theres a general lack of creativity across the average dm or player but i feel really feel that way.
@@mitchelldunn9149 Oh, no problem at all. Glad to respond to people that watch my vids and take the time to comment. Thank you!
For me.. I don't tend to make up vast, overarching rules that significantly affect game play 'on the spot'. IMHO, 5E is too twitchy to do that, and players that have built their characters to take advantage of how the rules are actually written will quickly inform you of this... lol.
Any rule changes I make are carefully considered, and everyone knows what they are before play begins so they can incorporate that into their character design concepts.
For example, directly from the DMG section, I used slow natural healing, Healing Kit requirements, and things like that. So.. for my campaigns, healing was still 'difficult' but nearly as quick as RAW, or as slow as Old School Play.
That said, I'm a forever DM. I would say... I've got a LOT of experience running and adjudicating the rules. But, the reality is.. that a LOT of DMs are new, and tweeking the rules is a tricky business. You make a what you think is a subtle change and it can vastly alter the game play of an entire class of character.
In old school play, the system isn't that twitchy.
Currently, I'm running the Hyperborea RPG which is 'old school' but also very robust with really interesting and detailed character classes and tactical combat rules, that is really hitting the spot for me and my players.
Game on!
@@captcorajus
Its awesome that you do so. And i appreciate the effort
And indeed any rule change does have to clear to the player. I make sure that i only change game rules in between game arcs, or long moments of downtime. I think your opinion about new DMs is the nicer way to word my own. I agree that lack of experience is a lot of the issue, and that is mitigated with smooth base rules which 5e fumbles on in multiple ways.
Ways you’ve specifically detailed! The healers kit stuff is the one I especially wanna take. Ima consider it for my next arch or game.
Interestingly enough i started with 4th edition, and was the forever DM then as i am now.
I run a Ravenloft campaign, with a slightly higher power scaling, and i found that looking backwards to old mechanics and not just its lore is pertinent to how to effectively deliver a horror experience. Sources like You, Dm it all, Seth Skorkowsky, Hour of the Raven and multiple others make that task so much easier, and I appreciate the work you do.
Great vids. One of the most under rated/under discussed module of 2nd ed. ever imo is Baltron's Beacon . One of my favorites but had the unfortunate luck of following I6, arguably the best module ever written for any edition. Would love to see a review of some of the more obscure titles.
I just finished GM-ing an Adventures in Middle Earth campaign. Great setting, BTW. Nice adaptation of Middle Earth to 5e.
In AiME, PCs do not enjoy the benefits of a long rest unless they are in a safe place: an Inn, their homes, etc. There were a few exceptions. In some cases, finding a place to take a long rest in the Wild was its own reward.
If I ever run 5e again, I’ll use this rule.
I would further restrict long rests to every 8 encounters. Yes, players need to rest and sleep. But powers that recharge, like HD, cannot be used again until after 8 encounters and a long rest. Otherwise, the players will be too powerful.
Obviously, exceptions should be allowed if and when it fits the story.
Yeah, I have several books from them, i love it. I'll be doing a AIME review here shortly
Personally I think AIME is awful. Terrible classes and ridiculous emphasis on dice and meta-gaming over role-playing. Based on reviews I bought a bunch of AIME stuff and quickly re-sold them online. I'll stick with MERP.
Man I love your stuff.
Hey where is your D20 review scale for this??? I like it
That review was done before i had the scale.
@@captcorajus ohh ok cool thanks for the reply
I use a customized combination of 1st and 2nd ed and could never get into 3rd and beyond.
The edition that's best is the one that you enjoy playing with your friends!
I agreed with most of your points, but feel that 5e really needs Feats for some of the classes, especially those with increased ability score advances. Instead of removing them completely, I'd suggest that you still get the old school feel if you simply limited feats to characters over 7th level.
based on my experience with Feats at the higher levels, I just feel that keeping them out keeps the game a little closer to the 'skilled' rather than 'super' aspect. But you know, that's the beauty of the system, you can sculpt it to play how best it works for you! Thanks for commenting!!!
Any chance of doing a retro review of S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks?
Probably. The S series is definitely a common request, so I'm going to add it to the cue!!
If you want 'insert-capable' adventures to supplement the hardcover campaigns then you should look at adventure league because they have a whole season of them to match each hardcover. Adventure League is very much 'by-the-numbers D&D' but there are a few gems here and there.
great video capt.
I will say if you played you played BECMI and/or 1st Edition AD&D, or a the weird I hybrid I sometimes did, but have been out of RPG circles for a while and thinking about getting back in -- that is, if you never played 3rd or 4th edition, have never heard of "feats" and such -- descriptions of 5e are often confusing. With a big gap since old school and now a lot of it sounds very alien, like wanting to get back into basketball only to hear people talking about scoring goals and getting the impression someone "revised" it into soccer.
Yeah, my biggest nit with the rules of 5E is they are poorly written. Its took awhile for me to make the adjustment. More work than should have been needed, but having done so, once you 'get it' you realize that it is a wellspring for your creativity.
I like it more now than I did when I made this video. Of course, i've been running two different campaigns a week now for over a year, and that's given me the opportunity to work through the rule's 'glitchy' parts.
Speaking of Volo' Guide will you be doing a review of that as well? Also do you still find time to stop by dragonsfoot?
Yes, I'm going to review that for sure! and yes, love Dragonsfoot!
The biggest add I'm going to do is bring back gold for XP.
I am a DM and have been running D&D 2nd edition for 38 years. Just recently made the switch up to 5th edition. First thing I noticed is that PC's got a lot stronger and the monsters got nerfed big time. Abilities that can incapacitate your characters now get saves every round. Used to be you got once shot at a save make or fail. Like a Harpy song for example, or charm person. Average damage done per hit by PC's has almost doubled at first level and by 6th level maybe 4 times what it used to be. Monster damage is up in some case a bit, most are down and AC in a lot of cases is lower than it used to be. Traps are not nearly as deadly. The dying process is now a process. In short it is much easier game on players than it used to be. Much harder on a DM to even find a challenge for the players.
Overall I can not say yet if I like it or not. For me it all depends on how well the players in my game respond to it. So far it seems ok enough, but I withhold my final evaluation depending on if they get bored with it. They played over 2 1/2 years with 2nd edition rules and kept wanting more.
They are excited now to convert to 5th edition and are liking many of the changes but have not played it long enough to decide if it is better.
I do already get some complaints about how the new structure restricts them from doing certain things they used to do.
Let me suggest one additional thing if you're 'old school' like me, that is not really apparent when you start DMing the game.
ACTIONS are king in 5E. So, if you want to 'mod' a creature to be a bit tougher give it some actions. Multiattack is obvious, but add a reaction, or a bonus action or both. This will immediately improve the creature's effectiveness.
If this is a 'tough' NPC that is expected to really challenge them, then ALSO give them legendary actions. Legendary saves, spell like abilities etc. The DMG has a great list of abilities for monsters.
You are under no obligation to follow how 'character classes' work for your monsters. The 'as written' monsters are really just 'base creatures' in 5E, and you can have a lot of fun (I know I do) 'tweaking' them to give the PCs a surprise or two. :)
@@captcorajus Agree with that. The biggest problem often is when your players go to the smart phone and look up what they are fighting and learn all its abilities and take it down. The game lost is challenge.
Only way to bring that back is to create something they do not know how to beat.
But then you once again get accused of not playing the game correctly or cheating playing god etc... So one does have to make changes fit logically into your world setting otherwise it loses that flavor and does feel like the DM is cheating.
While we're on spell confusion, Green Flame Blade still stumps me somewhat.
The written description & the bullet points in D&D Beyond make me think differently. On D&D Beyond it shows two damage "targets":
1d8 then
1d8+con mod to next creature/target.
The first d8 makes me think that you add that to the weapon dmg to your main target (weapon on fire like a flame tongue.)
After you hit, a gout of flame jumps to an adjacent target. (Just the fire die + con mod.)
In short, do you add a flame die to the main target or not?
on the counterspell .... if first wizard is casting Fireball and then second caster casts counterspell ... now the first is still casting fireball right if you add in extra words into fireball or hand gestures wouldn't that stop the fireball
No. that has nothing to do with it. Counterspell automatically cancels 3rd level spells.
Are you familiar with a company 'Central Castings'? They made these supplements 'Heroes of Legend' (fantasy) and Heores of Tomorrow (Sci Fy). They were background generates for role playing games.
how would you make strength great again? Im thinking about adding 1/2 str bonus to health on lv up if strength is 14 or greater. Dexterity seems to be a superior stat in 5e. flat footed isn't even in the phb that i can see, the only thing close is unconsciousness or victim being restrained giving you advantage but it doesn't negate that dex bonus so i added a rule when you cannot move freely you lose half(if you can still make attacks) or all dex to ac(if completely immobile) on top of the advantage/disadvantage(basically a +or- 7 on average instead of 5). the effects haven't really been noticeable.also made acrobatics a dex/str skill and athletics a str/con skill and considering allowing 1/2 of the extra base attribute bonus which isn't ever likely to exceed 2 but can be 0. let me know your thoughts are guys, am i wasting my time? too little change or too much? help me out.
I agree that things have tilted a bit too far in favor of the unarmored finesse fighter. The only way I can see to really do it, is to use the optional encumbrance rules very strictly from the DMG.
@@captcorajus i had that discussion with my players but we discover it still favors dex with an avg capacity of 37lbs after armor(std leather) and 15-25lbs for plate with str16-18. we discussed adding to heavy armor master to include donned heavy armor doesn't count towards your encumbrance, it makes the feat less bad but doesn't fix the issue.i could bake it into the martial classes but encumbrance doesn't come up much and my players are willing to risk stashing gold and returning with retainers or pack animals.
@@tomtom7955 Well, there is one thing you can do, though it will probably really annoy your players.
Continually introduce tasks that require athletics/ climbing/ lifting/ jumping.
I can tell you that I did this in my group, and they learned their lessons. The 8 strength monk was the most egregious. Strength has a TON of uses in 5E, sometimes you just need to take an active role in bringing that to light. :)
@@captcorajus i have done mean things to them like trap them in a cave with a large boulder, put them in situations where had someone had a high str the outcome would have been better, at least the casters learned quickly to keep a str buff in their back pocket lol. i guess i should just be happy that fighters are way better in 5e than any other edition i have played.
@@tomtom7955 I'm playing a fighter/ rogue at the moment with the champion archetype, and its awesome.
I treat any of the poorly written rules as a place to make things up as needed. More or less as Gary intended.
No feats would make me NEVER EVER play in a game with you, Feats are a NECESSARY to the game. Also i hate the array, i get not letting me roll, just let me use point buy
Of course not every DM is a fit to every player and vice versa. If that's a deal breaker for you, then of course, you're free to play elsewhere.
@@goliracs Sure being able to customize your character so it isn't like every other character of the same class is lame.. right.
So around the 23:00 mark where you specify the healing and how to scale it back, so when they do short rests they utilize a Healer's Kit, using one use, and then spend their hit dice to heal like normal. I understand that, but what I find difficulty understanding is slow natural healing. They don't use a Healer's Kit during a long rest, and instead just use a hit die to heal akin to a short rest, but how do they get hit dice back? Or do they only get those back when they retreat back to civilization?
Sorry for the longwinded question, as all and all, I enjoyed your review as well as your other videos! As such, I shall subscribe and will eagerly await more content!
So what happens is when you long rest you DO NOT recover hit points... you recover your spent Hit Dice. What this means is, that if you wish to heal more, you're also going to have to take additional short rests at the beginning of the day to actually heal the damage.
The net effect is that it will take TIME to heal damage, especially if they are higher level and have lots of hit points. If they are in a safe town, where its easy to find a safe spot to rest, its usually no big deal. However, if they are in a dangerous area, finding a place to take a long rest undisturbed and recover hit dice can be difficult.
Do you also limit the healer's kit usage down from 10, or limit how many they can have to limit players from just mass buying them? Or do you think that the 10 uses are adequate enough?
No, 1 healing kit is good for 10 uses. Each hit die recovered is a use of the healing kit. Mass buy is difficult also. The supplies required... bandages, needles, thread, salves and so forth are fairly easy to manufacture, but only in limited supply. So, its not like you can just go to the shop and buy a hundred of them. Supply of healing kits only really becomes an issue if they are in the wilderness for an extended period. Also, if they can find a healer (i.e. not a cleric, just someone skilled in non magical healing), healers have their own healing kits, and I'll give the players back 2HD for each use, so care of a skilled person is desired.
You can have fun with it. The whole point is that it takes time to heal, and uses resources to do so. The method that you use to enforce this is up to you.
If you want to roll for stats - but don't want people overpowered - I highly recommend this tool: aramis.hostman.us/dnd/RedrickRoller.html
Cap I want to put you between a rock and a hard spot, C&C or 5E which one would you pick? And as always you give another good review Sir.
That's a tough choice, but it comes down to what EVERYONE wants to play, not just my preferences as a DM. I love Castles and Crusades, but I have to admit the character options for 5E are a lot of fun, and I enjoy the way the action economy works. If I ran C&C right now, I would totally incorporate some things from 5E, such as backgrounds, inspiration, and advantage and disadvantage. Both are well done games. I will say this, C&C is a better explained system, and very very easy to run.
5E's functionality on Fantasy Grounds is also pretty darn good. I'm a bit disappointed with C&C's functionality, and the module support there isn't great either.
I really like C&C but this video has me split. I hated the fast healing in 5E. Also even though feats are optional I couldn't really accept the idea around not using them. I have a particular set of house rules i like to incorporate around ability score progression and having feats makes those house rules completely impossible. It was only after seeing this video I thought "dude just get rid of feats." I don't like the way 5E ability scores are done when it comes to racial bonuses. I love editions past way of Humans are the bar with no modification, and other races are modified both positively and negatively around that. That way, a new player can come in and get an idea of how the races contrast against each other. The way 5E handles it might make sense mechanically, but not when comparing the abilities in terms of what they really mean. For example in older editions you compare an elf and a human and you can say: "okay, elves are more dexterous (+1 or +2 Dex), and more fragile (-1 or -2 Con) than the average person." Now in 5E not using the variant the math breaks down completely differently. Humans get a +1 to everything so when comparing a wood elf to a human in 5e elves are: more dexterous, equally as wise, less strong, less healthy, less intelligent, and less charismatic. Why are eleves less intelligent or less charismatic than humans? Doesn't make any sense. Now I understand the mechanical thinking of it and I have heard people say they don't like playing characters with ability penalties but I personally love the contrast it brought in previous editions. I am trying to figure out how to bring them back without messing with the balance of the game to much.
I like your reasoning, but that's why I use the standard array. Ability scores in 5E don't represent the same things as they did in past editions. Consider that in 1E you got an experience point boost if your prime requisite met the minimum requirements. Now, unless you multiclass there are no minimum requirements.
As I said in the video, for us grognards, there's a lot of things with D&D we have to unlearn, and unthink. It took me a whole campaign before it clicked in my head for me. In this edition, more than any other, just giving the players a 'standard array' of scores gives everyone a few good stats and one bad one. The players then have control on how to place and modify them from there. That's a lot of agency for the player when it comes to their character.
As far as HUMANS go, I have an idea for you, and its one I'm considering doing. I got the idea from Middle Earth Adventures. Why not dispense with the +1 in everything, and institute 'Cultures'. Give the humans +1 or +2 in a particular stat, and a choice of proficiency in one of four skills based on what region in your campaign world they are from? Say, you have a culture of nomadic horsemen, they get get a +2 to dex, a +2 to str, or a +1 to str and a +1 to dex...and proficiency in one of the four following skills: Acrobatics, Animal Handling, Athletics, or nature.
This fixes your issue with the math, and makes playing humans attractive to the players. The best part is you can work with the players to determine what the bonuses and skills are for the culture, and I'm sure.... especially if your homebrewing your setting that you'll end up with some great stuff for your campaign!
Game on!!
That is a very helpful idea and very useful. This will give me a great excuse to detail human cultures within my game world. I still like the idea in using some penalties if it makes sense. Aside from making certain classes less attractive is there any seriously game breaking issues that may happen from adding some penalties where it made sense? I know that volos includes some penalties in those races.
Marshall Caouette I had a feeling you might find it useful. Glad to help! I'd love to hear what you come up with.
I don't see any issues that would be game breaking, though you might have an excuse as to why you don't see certain classes among that culture.
My main problem with 5e is the reluctance to try new things with the forgotten realm setting in places we have not explored much. Much of the north has been unexplored for example and Calimshan needs some love as well. WOTC is too worried of backlash to try something new it is sad.
However, Chris Perkins is not wrong, Mike Mearls is wrong in a sense. read Counterspell carefully. You cast it and interrupt the opposing caster while they are casting their spell, so in order for them to counterspell your counterspell they would have to stop casting their original spell.
While I understand your point, the order of actions as defined by the game resolves with the last action being resolved first, and the first action being resolved last. So, functionally, it looks like this: Cast fireball with an action... that action never takes place because of the reaction of counterspell... you still have your own reaction, which you use to counter the counterspell. Your action is the last action so it resolves first. If successful, the first counter spell is stopped, and that leaves you with your action to cast your fireball. :)
There really isn’t a right or wrong way to read, or interpret any rule in 5e. They are purposefully written vaguely, you are encouraged, from the words of the creators themselves, to do anything you want with them.
@@jackhartford521 Which is pretty much how it was with 1st and 2nd edition. As a DM you make the game rules fit your world.
If you give your players reason for why things are done that way they can believe it better than oh this is just the DM playing god and screwing the players over. Which buy the way is the reason behind why version 3rd and 4th editions were created.
Because players wanted hard fast rules instead of the DM making up house rules. Sort of full circle on this.
Are you going to review the "tales from the yawning portal"?
How could I not? Retro modules for 5E? I kinda have to, don't I? Got the book in today as a matter of fact, and I've also purchased the Fantasy Grounds version as well, so my review will be on both. This week!
Will you also be giving your thoughts on dungeons and dragons beyond?
Definitely!!
So i know im a bit late to this video but i'd be curious to know if any of your opinions have changed since its release. I was all aboard the hype train followed its beta and played it extensively since then and have run into a few issues that constantly irk me that don't include how wotc as a company treats fans of the D&D line.
1) Characters without spells or some kind of innate magic are the exception, not the rule. Every class has access to innate magic. This for me has made running anything lower magic than forgotten realms difficult. If i lower the magic in the world, the party now has access to a resource no one else does. If i increase it im back to a high magic world. I think only two or three of the classes dont have magic at its core and they all have archetypes to get it.
2) Arbitrary magic restrictions and spell scaling. I thought i liked the whole use a higher spell level for a more powerful version of the spell. Turns out it just makes some spells obsolete because the scaling is low and the cost is high. also concentration is applied a bit too often. It is a good idea but most spells should be fire and forget.
3) Whack a mole factor: getting ko'd 5 times in the same fight is a bit silly. Healing magic is so easy to come by that this is a common occurrence unless i go out of my way for an npc to coup de grace a downed opponent which i started doing if they see the same guy they just thought they killed get up.
4) Last peeve im gonna mention and this one is another one that really grinds my gears. Too many people have abilities that remove portions of the game entirely. Example are both the ranger class and the outlander background, who can automatically forage and provide food for the whole party in plenty as well as "can never get lost" this requires zero checks on the player part or any player skill it basically just says dont worry about food as a resource or exploration as a game element.
Really, if anything my opinion has only gotten better as my comfort level and understanding of the rules have improved. Let me address your comments point by point.
1) Not really. YOU as DM decide what archetypes/ subclassses are available in your campaign setting. If you want to play a more 'low magic' setting then simply disallow subclasses like arcane trickster, and eldritch knight. simple. YOU decide what your players have access to. You do not have to allow every subclass and archetype available. WOTC is producing material that is meant to appeal to a wide variety of people with a wide variety of tastes and desires. Those may not align with yours. Change it. In fact you may customize your archetypes to FIT your world. I don't know if you've checked it out, but Adventures in Middle Earth shows you exactly how to customize the game for a low magic setting.
2) I do not understand how it makes spells 'obsolete'. Sorry, but you're misunderstanding something here. The exact opposite of what your saying is the case here. Casting at a higher level keeps low level spells relevant at higher levels, it doesn't make them obsolete. Sure there are some spells you'll never cast at higher level in most cases (sleep) but that's always been true with D&D.
3) Once again. Not sure what you mean here. In the rules an unconscious character is attacked with advantage, and any attack is considered a critical hit (Lose 2 death saves automatically). If you want to make things even deadlier make a death save DC 15 or better... Its your game. You decide how it works. If someone fails a death save and you don't wan't them up and running at full ability assign a level of exhaustion (or two). In my game, 1 failed death save = 1 level of exhaustion. 2 = 2 levels of exhaustion. Thuse even if they are healed back up to full, with 2 levels of exhaustion they are at disadvantage on on ability checks and their speed is halved.
4) YOU decide what backgrounds are available in your game. Don't like the outlander background.. then just disallow it. In fact, you should probably have a few 'custom' backgrounds to go with your settting to emphasized the flavor of it. The background mechanic is meant to allow a DM to showcase the special aspects of their campaign. Go for it. Make your own!!
In my Primeval Thule campaign I had several custom backgrounds. PCs where human only, though I had different skills and ability score adjustments depending on what region of the continent they were from. Everyone loved it, and we had a great time.
Session 0, lay out what's available. Recruit like minded players who want to play your game, and have fun. Really, that's true with every RPG. Obviously, some RPGs might just be at 'default' just what you're looking for, and you should play that game if you can find players willing to play it with you. OSR your game, customize your backgrounds, only allow those archetypes that suit your setting. Its not a smorgasbord, a la carte thing. Not every archetype, background or race makes sense for everyone's setting.
The key is to simply set player's expectations at session 0, lay out your creation rules, and the reasoning behind them. In my primeval thule campaign the only arcane spell casting classes available were the bard, sorcerer and the warlock, and NONE of spell casting archetypes were available, and everyone was fine with that because they were with me on the pulpy, low magic game.
Deviate from RAW. Hack the game. Make it your own. D&D has always been that kind of game and 5E, moreso then 4E or 3E is built to cater to this kind of play (i.e. less codified). The needs of your table are the needs of YOUR table, not WOTC's. Don't be afraid to tinker with the rules, and have fun with it! The entire point of 5E game design is NOT to try to account for everything. Keep that in mind and don't be afraid to consult with you players, see what they want to play and make sure it aligns with what you want to run!!
Of course, there's always Castles and Crusades, which is a great game if 5E isn't your thing.
The bit about spell scaling was a lot of the spells that do scale, don’t scale well and fall out of favor because of it. Compared to older editions where magic missile for example, will always be first level but scale with your caster level. A magic missile from a 12th level wizard is scarier than a level 1 wizard. In 5e a first level magic missile is the same regardless of caster level.
But it might be worth tinkering a bit more than I have been with it. I’m strong considering castles and crusades as well
@@Mike-zi4hi No matter what edition, magic missile is relatively lame at higher levels against 'prepared' opponents. A brooch of shielding makes the spell useless.
Comparatively, in 5E you START with 3 missiles versus only 1 missile with one additional missile every 3 levels. So, two missiles at 4th, 3 at 7th and so on. 5e starts you with three missiles right away, and gives you 1 additional missile for every spell slot above 1st. So casting it with a 3rd level slot gives you 5 missiles!!
In your example a 12th level wizard would only produce 4 missiles in 1st edition D&D, while in 5E the wizard could produce between 3 and 8 missiles. That seems 'better' to me, with a lot of added flexibility.
So, I'm just not seeing how 5E is not scaling spells well at higher levels versus other editions.
Now, against a higher level opponent that casts spells, I wouldn't cast magic missile at them unless they'd already used their reaction.
I really like how they action economy works in 5E. One thing about 5E is that you have to give your BBEGs their legendary and lair actions and their minions. When you do that, they become VERY deadly and dangerous. Actions are king in 5E moreso than other editions, and for those coming from an older rules set, that concept might be a bit jarring.
@@captcorajus I did actually pick up a copy of C&C recently and so far im loving it should have my first game next weekend. If i do continue 5e im definitely going to bring some of these concepts over like not rolling for everything and be a bit more houserule friendly. Im just generally worried about changing the game to the point of being unrecognizable as the game people signed up to play. One of the things that i liked about C&C is the ranger and paladin are no longer spellcasting classes and making it a bit slower to heal
@@Mike-zi4hi Yes;. I agree. Castles and Crusades is an amazingly good game.
Don’t like the level 20 restriction...
Meh. been playing for 40 years, and never went past level 15. I don't really see the point to be honest, but hey, as long as EVERYONE'S having fun, right?
@@captcorajus it’s all good. Been playing the same amount of time so it would be considered a players preference. I am finding some rule settings in 5e that allow for some similar 2e standards that I have always liked.
I know and use matt colvilles vid you called out greeatly
I watched the spell timing bit of this video 5 times and still don't understand it at all.
That is hard on some people. I created a cheat sheet for two of my players a Cleric - War and a Paladin.
This is for the dwarf Cleric
Things your PC can do during your turn (in combat)
Move
o move 25 feet or 5 squares on map
Interact
o Interact with one object or feature in the environment as you move - open a door, open a chest. To open second door or other object must Use Action to interact with a second object.
Communicate
o Speech (limit the number of words to 6), or gestures, or both to party members
Action
o Dash - Move again
o Cast - spell that takes 1 action
o Disengage - move away without getting an attack against you
o Dodge - Until the start of your next turn attacks have disadvantage against you, IF you see the attacker. Dexterity saves also have advantage.
o Help - you help one creature with a task, giving advantage on ability checks. Or distract one creature within 5 feet - the next attack roll that an ally of yours makes gets advantage. The advantage goes away when used or at the start of your next turn. Example - give a healing potion to another character or distract monster to give another PC advantage on attack.
o Hide - you roll a Stealth check to attempt to hide.
o Ready or Hold your Action - name a circumstance, then you take your named action (cast spell, shot, dash, …)
o Search - take the time to look (Perception) or examine (Investigate) something.
o Use an Item (Magic) - activate a Magic item - uses a command word or push a button.
o Use an Object - pick a lock, work a lever, pull on a chain, give a healing potion to another person.
o Use a Special Ability - Use a class or race feature (sense evil, turn undead, …)
• Channel Divinity uses (can use 1 time until after a short or long rest) [ ]
Turn Unholy (rng: 30’ undead or fiends Wis save VS your DC) (Destroy undead ½ CR )
o Attack - attack with a weapon: melee or range
• Channel Divinity uses (can use 1 time until after a short or long rest) [ ]
Channel Divinity: Guided Strike +10 bonus to attack roll.
Bonus Action
o Take a potion yourself.
o Bonus Attack - if Action Attack was used can take second attack (# times = wisdom bonus) [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
o Cast - any spell that has a casting of bonus action.
- Divine Favor - Healing Word
- Sanctuary - Shield of Faith
- Magic Weapon - Spiritual Weapon
- Mass Healing Word
• Spiritual Weapon: Move 20’, and attack a creature within 5’ of weapon.
Reaction (not on your turn)
o Attack of opportunity - 1 melee attack if seen enemy moves away from you when within 5 feet.
So for the spells the cleric can case Bless as their Action and as a Bonus Action cast Healing Word.
Now the Counterspell would allow a Wizard to attempt to stop one of the above spells, using their reaction. A reaction only happens when it is not your turn but you are attempting to interrupt someone else's Action.
I remember back when 5E was called DND now.
Very good work!
I'm not feeling it for 5th Edition. DCC RPG for me has been the definitive system or pool to take ideas from and tag on an old school system, which seems where the 5th Edition designers seem to have taken the wizard's duel thing, but it's done a lot better in DCC RPG.
while I agree that DCC RPG is definitely a much more intriguing game, I feel it lacks a lot when it comes to character customization. All fighters are the same, so two players playing a fighter would feel to be each other's clone.
Why do you think that the "action economy" idea is new to 5e? It is essentially identical to how players take turns in 3e.
First, no where in the video do I say or represent that 'action economy' is new to 5E or attempt to draw parallels to other editions. I simply said I liked the way it was done in 5E.
Second, while certainly there are similarities to 3E... 5e has greatly reduced the types of actions... from 8 in 3e to 3 in 5e.
3e consisted of: Standard Action, move action, full round action, immediate action, free action, swift action, not an action, and restricted activity.
5e consists of Action, Reaction, and Bonus action. That's it.
Furthermore, during a round the player gets 1 action to do many 'similar' things in 3E but they have very different effects on the game. There is no move action. You can just move your standard movement before, during or after your action.
During your action you can:
Attack
Cast a spell
Dash (take another move)
Disengage
Dodge
help
hide
ready
search
use an object
Bonus actions only occur during various game effects, or are activated as part of certain class abilities
Reaction Actions occur only as defined by certain triggers in the game.
In 3E as part of your STANDARD action you can:
Attack
Cast a spell
Activate a magic item
Total Defense
Draw or Sheathe a weapon
Ready or loose a shield
manipulate an item
direct or redirect a spell
stand up
There are shared similarities.. but the application has been greatly simplified, cleaned up, redefined and shifted. There's also a bit of 4E tossed in there as well (Triggered Actions).
I hope that clears everything up.
@@captcorajus
"First, no where in the video do I say or represent that 'action economy' is new to 5E or attempt to draw parallels to other editions. I simply said I liked the way it was done in 5E. "
I suppose I misunderstood when you said around 8:50 "Another highlight of 5E's creativity is the action system." The wording and tone of your voice throughout the next minute sounded like 5E created those action types or the action system.
Also, when you said, "The action economy of 5E . . . is a new concept" (13:17) it is ambiguous whether you meant that action economy as a concept is new or just that 5E's redesign of that already-existing concept is new.
"Second, while certainly there are similarities to 3E... 5e has greatly reduced the types of actions... from 8 in 3e to 3 in 5e.
3e consisted of: ..."
Technically, perhaps, but the way it is done in practice in 3E is there are 4 action types (5 or more if you distinguish the various types of "bonus" actions: free, immediate, swift, etc.)
- Full-round, Standard, Move, and "Bonus."
The only real difference I see is that 5E doesn't have specialized Full-round actions (?) and it groups all sorts of non-standard, non-move actions under the heading of "Bonus."
That doesn't really feel very new to me, but per your clarification you didn't actually say that 5E is new in this regard to actions.
Everything else you said about the similarities and differences only reinforces my point that 5E didn't really do much that is new or creative regarding actions. Also, some of the things you listed under 3E standard actions are actually move actions (draw a weapon, e.g.), but that's not relevant here.
The way movement in 5E is done is radically different, however. It allows for shoot on the run and use of cover more, which is a cool innovation, but it nullifies the 3E-style feats that allow those types of movement as a special character feature.
Anyway, the reason behind my comment was that when I compare how actions in 3E and in 5E are handled in-practice at the table. There isn't any meaningful difference, and your wording and tone of voice when talking about how actions are done in 5E made it sound like you were saying 5E came up with the _actions on a player's turn_ concept as something completely new and different compared to older editions. I hope you understand that based on the title and purpose of this video and the way you talked about it, it was confusing.
My ultimate conclusion on the topic:
After five years of researching 5E, talking to players and GMs who use it, and reading through its rule books, I still think 3E is superior in so many ways. Maybe 1% at best of 5E material is anything I would consider using in a TTRPG. The whole modern state of D&D, exemplified by 5E and the philosophy of gaming that surrounds it makes me very sad. I don't even want to say that I play D&D anymore if this is what it has become.
The intent of being easier to play, lowering barriers to entry, being more inclusive, etc. I am 100% behind, but the approach and execution on those intents was a massive fail. It's like a player describing a heroic action and then rolling a 1. 5E is a critical failure, despite its good intentions.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself I can agree on most points or at least conclude its really worth arguing over minutia except for, "... but the approach and execution on those intents was a massive fail. "
That's demonstrability not true as 5E has outsold 3E and 4E combined. If the system issues were as big a failure as you're implying, it seems unlikely that it would have as big a following as it has.
Whether you agree or disagree on systematic changes, what you can't classify 5E as is a failure. :)
I'm surprised you don't limit the archetypes to the basics (champion, thief etc). And you didn't talk about Spells. For me the countless saving throws to spells becomes hand holding as does the Concentration rules.
I'm really a minimalist when it comes to rule alterations. I see no reason to limit one of the more interesting aspects of 5th edition.
Further, I think the concentration rule is a great rule. Clerics in 3E were ridiculously OP, and the concentration rule puts a limit on such things without needing complex rules for stacking.
I also agree that spells need either an attack or a saving throw to affect another character. I don't see that as handholding. Spells in 5E pack a lot more punch than they did in earlier editions, but with the saving throw and concentration rules, they are easily reigned in.
I'm not knocking the need for an attack or saving throw, what came to mind were spells like web. Why in the world do I need to concentrate on web? Or Flesh to Stone that gives you a saving throw every turn.
As for the Archetypes we'll have to agree to disagree. There are so many of them and they are so varied. I think to make it feel truly old school,limiting each class to one archetype
is right level.
***** You need to concentrate so you can't spam the spell, and then go crazy with it, coating a massive area with web.
Flesh to stone effectively 'kills' a creature instantly, regardless of hit points. High level creatures will not be able to be taken out so easily, especially with a wizard with a low save DC.
Exactly my point. In the old games if you got caught in the web, you were caught! Start getting that touch out and burn baby burn. I too like 5e including Advantage/disadvantage, short /long rest and above all making a turn and round what the average person would think it to be. but it is very much a game geared toward millennials.
How do I dress palyers that want to bild the own special snow flake pc (check EN world level up 5e) because they think mechanics are used to making a nice pc instead of fluff
I just state what content is available in my game. I'm certainly going to allow players to use their imagination, but at the end of the day this is a game, and it has rules. As referee I'm going to play with the rules I feel comfortable with. I'm a player to. I generally say, "use these guidelines and have fun. If you play in my campaign you're going to have blast!" If that's too much for them, I say 'Find another Table then, thank you for your interest."
@@captcorajus I`m very open if they cme to me and I can be decided on a case by case base otherwise if just say hey the official stuff expert this or that
any other stuff ask me and the gfroupe
if the want special concepts we work them out together
11:33 Funny how neither Mearls or Perkins cites an actual rule. They just say "yes" or "no." Seems to me they didn't put much thought into their answers. (I am sorry, but I am not a huge fan of either of these guys, especially Mearls. Their marketing efforts seem to me as part of the root cause behind what I see as the main problem with D&D today -- i.e., the way people seem to play the game now, with more emphasis of non-thematic diversity within a party (so that they have too many personal goals that can reduce the ability of the party to unite behind a common goal) and farcical characters that, when in the hands of inexperienced players, can lead to situations where the players are not working together as a team to survive and solve problems, more just overdeveloping their tragic flaws in such a way as to actually stunt the party's growth. Their UA-cam vids for 4e & 5e, along with those of Critical Clowns, tend to turn the game into a badly done high school improv class rather than a team-oriented problem-solving game.)
To me the biggest problem with 'modern D&D' is a bunch of old school grognards 'diversity whining' about the focus on diversity. I don't mean to offensive, but I really don't see what the problem is. Play at the table how you want, but if you love D&D I don't understand why this is so bothersome to people.
The default setting for D&D, and games like it are teens to middle aged white men. That's the majority demographic of the people who play the game by no small mearsure. WOTC, and EVERY game company recognize that if they are going to expand their business they are going to have to find a way to expand into other markets.. women, and minorities. You do this by focusing various marketing projects to reflect the markets you want to tap into. ALL businesses do this. If we want this hobby to continue, it needs to grow and expand.
As far as Critical Role goes, I think its great. If I was going to be 'critical' of it, I would say Mercer's style is a bit 'railroady' but they seem to be having fun playing his game, and certainly they are an entertaining group of folks, and I enjoy watching them on occasion. More importantly... Critical Role, other shows like it, and Game streaming platforms have absolutely been a primary factor in the game's massive resurgence over the last few years. The game has met and exceeded its popularity from the 80s, and the reason for this is because for the first time ever, you don't have to try and explain to people what the game is, you can just show them. It takes the 'mystery shroud' over what the game is about and makes it accessible. To me, that's a good thing because it means more people are playing and sustaining the hobby. Its good for all of us.
Thank you for your comment.
From what I can see, there are really two major strains within the OSR community. The first type is dissatisfied with or seek an alternative to WOTC's comic-booky superhero fantasy with video-game-like mechanics version of D&D because they simply don't like that sort of game or game tone. (If people actually want to play that way, that's fine, but for me it impoverishes the experience so I will play a different game.) The other side -- which I'd rather not be associated with, thank you -- is a more politically alt-right type which includes not only certain "old grognards" but also some younger assholes (some of whom might me white supremacist or male supremacists) who seek to suppress diversity because they are afraid of losing power. (I will not give any names, but warn people to be careful what products you buy if you support democratic values. Certainly, WOTC is thankfully not an alt-right company, and I do not criticize them from an alt-right perspective because I don't hold alt-right values.) Of course, there is no monolithic OSR opinion, even within the categories I suggest. The reason I come to your channel is because you do not seem to have a shred the latter motivation. I have gone so far as to block certain other UA-camrs based on the homophobic, sexist and racist tones they set -- and I would NEVER buy their products regardless of quality, because I don't support assholery. Thanks.
PS -- Critical Role is a bunch of actors, in a finely edited program. So yes it might appear to be "fun" because the actors are paid to make it that way, but it is an advertisement for a WOTC (i.e., pre-programmed, farcical and video-game-like) style of D&D. It's a railroad because these people are actors and they have a general script (that proposes a track to be improvised) for show.
@@BTsMusicChannel I can't agree with your evaluation of CR, as I don't see it being a scripted show. They play for HOURS on a weekly basis. Scripting something like that would simply require too much work.
As far as the other aspects, I don't adhere to any philosophy... right or left. I adhere to decency, inclusion, respect, kindness, empathy, reason, logic and a good bit of humility. I try to approach my channel with those things in mind. :)
Well, I certainly am not a Democrat or Republican, but some of what I see in the "alt-right" version of OSR (as I call it), it is absolutely sickening. What I mean by "script" on CR is the railroad itself, nothing more. Thanks...this is a great channel, one of my favorites of this type! I'd argue that what you adhere to is democratic values and the philosophy of the enlightenment.
Well if running a humanocentric game as it is stated in the 1st edition DMG makes me a racist well I guess I am.
Its sad to see this good channel become an alt-left wing mouth piece.
No Dragon born and no Tiefling.
I don't care about what the player's race or sex is.
The problem I have with critical role is that if you have 4 or more hours to watch that thing.
Why not get together with your friends and play your own game?
Put the 4 + hours to a lot better use.
Keep the alt-left crap out of here.
We abandoned this version for Basic Fantasy and some other older games when the politics and hate-spewing trolls became too loud and obvious to ignore.
Been playing since 2015. I have no idea how other people could make one quit a game.
I disagree with your criticism of 5E healing. I like it that my players can fully heal in 8hrs, once within a 24 hr period. It greatly reduces the amount of time players spend going back and forth between town and dungeon because they need to go heal up. It keeps the players in the adventure rather than halting the game for extended periods of healing.
You're free to disagree, but this is a channel that caters to 'old school' role playing, which focuses on resource management. 'OSR your game' is in the video's title.
Knowing that injuries are long lasting forces players to conserve spells, potions, and resources, which is the style of play for OSR games. Further.. sometimes, its when the characters are 'hold up' in town, recovering from their injuries that other dramatic story opportunities present themselves. This is a choice for style of play that isn't so 'action focused' on just forays back and forth between the town and the dungeon.
One can debate the term 'realism' in a game with dragons, but it certainly isn't very dramatic if even the most debilitating injuries the heroes can just slug off without consequence or care, and everything is just hunky-dory the next day. 'viedo-gamey' is the term that gets thrown around with this style of play.
If that's what makes your group happy, awesome, but a lot of players are looking for a different kind of challenge, and that's what this video was about.
@@captcorajus don't misunderstand me, I'm an old school player, started with the Holmes edition in 1979. Most of your OSR suggestions for 5E I was already doing. For example I have never allowed feats in my 5E campaigns, no multi classing and I limit player races to the traditional player races.
I like the 5E healing system as written again because it simply keeps the players in the dungeon for longer stretches. Especially at the lower levels. As far as realism goes I would posit that 5E is not an ideal system for that. Hit points in 5E are described more like a character's endurance, that only the last few hit points equate to severe wounds. Easier for me to just run an AD&D campaign when we want to play "Old School". For the record my favorite iteration of 1st Edition AD&D is Kenzerco's 4E Hackmaster system which took the best of AD&D and created an old school system on steroids.
@@deanm375 Understood. My argument wasn't that it was 'unrealistic' however. It goes to style of play. I don't WANT my player characters just traipsing back and forth from Dungeon to town on a whim. I don't want them jumping from one combat encounter to the next without care because 'they'll get better' tomorrow. I want them worried that if they aren't careful they might find themselves low on hit points or healing spells if they don't conserve. For that reason, overnight healing does not work for me.
How good or bad my suggestion in this case is, really depends on what it is you're going for in your campaign. That's all I was saying. :)
In addition, for those DMs like me who might not be satisfied with the status quo, I wanted to point out that the DMG offered some great alternatives.
@@captcorajus I agree with most of what you just wrote. I try to find the balance between challenging and punishing, having fun not being frustrated. I've ended hundreds of PC's careers. When the players throw caution aside their PCs usually pay for it. Sometimes though, a group can have a really bad stretch of dice rolling and the 5E healing rules are much more forgiving in those situations, instead of me as a DM fudging my own dice rolls to compensate for a group's bad luck versus bad player choices. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I really do enjoy your videos despite our differing point of view on this topic.
@@deanm375 I get what you're saying. However, 5E is very forgiving in other ways. Revivify, death saves, etc.. its possible to die in 5e, but unlikely. My style of play is that I roll all combat dice out in the open. Attack and damage dice. I'm unforgiving in that way.... but as I said, its a matter of preference, and as long as the groups are having fun, either way is appropriate.
I enjoy the comments, especially when they differ from my opinions. Thanks for the fun discussion!
With regards to spells, rules and actions, does it not give dm's and groups the ability to house rule things if there is ambiguity on how rules are interpreted?
Well, that's why I recommended a look at the Sage Advice compendium. Some of the peculiar editing choices with rule explanations can lead to misreading of the rules. That's not to say that RAW is wrong. The rules are very good when applied as intended, and there is a definite well though out reasoning behind them. Which is also why I suggested looking at the DMG's Chapter 9 for ways to modify the rules before coming up with an original house rule.
If you try to 'fix' a rule you feel is broken due to a misinterpretation at later levels that can come back to bite you on the ass. My suggestion is for someone in the group, it doesn't have to be the DM, but certainly its better if it is, to read the SA Compendium. Its not that long at all, but the answers therein will definitely clarify things for you, and give you a good idea on how to interpret ambiguous situations that might crop up.
5e is a pasteurized product, can't believe you liked it... the art is worse, the whole art direction is bland and all that watercolor tearing the picture in half GOD DAMN IT! PCs born heroes on lvl 1, only a DM's true desire can kill a PC and the list goes on... do you still like 5E in 2022 or it was just because 4E was so terrible that we accepted 5E with open arms... that explain why OSR is growing each day
I liked it when it came out... and still do, but with tweeks. I never played it 'as written.' The back of the DMs guide have some solid suggestions on how to make the game grittier as the video describes.
What killed 5E for me was the fact that it is poorly written, and there are too many things in the game that are just too 'gamey' and kill suspense. (pact chain warlock is a mess)
I'd run or play it in a heartbeat if asked to, but with modifications.
That said, 5E 100% has a DM problem. Its a bear to run. The challenge rating system is useless, and the budge system for encounters is nonsense. I'm running Hyperborea now and EVERYONE loves it.
@@captcorajus I remember when Warlock or Witch was a wizard Kit in AD&D2ndE " Complete Wizard Handbook."
The only reason some players played a witch was cause it had the benefit of creating potions at lower level caster level.
Sorry man but this system is Dry as a Dust Bowl.Skill progression is Lack luster an uninspiring. Characters seem Cookie Cut. more has been extracted from 3 and 4 e, Very little From 1st and 2nd Ed .played through Lost mines, was NOT impressed.If we get a 6th ed i hope we get More from 1st and 2nd ed
Love your channel, and I suppose it's 'your channel, your rules' but I can't fathom why you would discuss 5e in the same breath as "old school". Even setting aside the fact that it's an abomination, its literally the newest AD&D there is!
I don't consider it an 'abomination' I consider the best edition is the one that you're having fun playing.. I also recognize that a lot of players are coming into the hobby and those player will eventually (and are) look for something different, or more challenging and that's an opportunity to introduce the OSR to newer, younger people.
The goal of this channel, is, and always has been to be a gateway for people to learn about the game's past, to feature new material, the best creators and to promote fun. :)